1 CGHC010238682026 2026:CGHC:33241 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 5916 of 2026 Madhu Jaiswal @ Madhur Jaiswal S/o Indrabali Jaiswal Aged About 54 Years R/o Darshila, P.S. Jaitpur, Distt. Shahdol, Madhya Pradesh . ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Arakshi Kendra Kelhari, Dist. M.C.B. (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Sumit Singh, Dy. Advocate General. Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 31.07.2026 1. This is the First bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 18/2026 registered at Police Station : Arakshi Kendra Kelhari, District – Manendragarh – Chirmiri – Bharatpur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 103(1), 296, 308(3) and 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. As per the prosecution story, in brief, on 03.03.2026, the complainant, Santosh, lodged a report at the concerned Police Station stating that on 03.03.2026, at about 6:00 a.m., he, along with Suraj, Deepak, Santkumar, Bharat, Ramnath, Mahesh and Nikhil, had gone to the Barne River for collecting sand from Dumargaon village of Pasuri in the tractor of the deceased, Sonu Chakradhari. At that time, two policemen arrived ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2026.07.31 16:42:07 +0530 2 at the spot and stated that they had come there to steal sand in broad daylight. Thereafter, one of the policemen boarded the tractor and started it. The deceased, Sonu Chakradhari, requested the policemen with folded hands to let him go. However, one of the policemen allegedly assaulted Sonu on both his thighs with a stick and thereafter demanded Rs. 20,000/- from him. Meanwhile, Vijay, the husband of the Sarpanch, arrived at the spot and told Sonu to leave the place, assuring him that he would speak to the policemen. Thereafter, Sonu started proceeding towards the village on the tractor. After travelling a short distance, one of the policemen, who was thin in build, allegedly struck Sonu on the head from behind with a shovel, as a result of which Sonu fell from the tractor and the tractor also overturned. Thereafter, Sonu was immediately taken to the hospital for treatment, where, after examination, the doctor declared him dead. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He submits that during the course of investigation, the police officials recorded the memorandum statement of the applicant, wherein the applicant stated that he works as a labourer and that on 03.03.2026, at about 7:00–8:00 a.m., while he was returning after tying his oxen in the barn, two policemen came along the way and asked him about the way to Dumargaon, stating that they had received some information. Thereafter, the applicant got into the Bolero vehicle and reached near the Barne River, where the deceased, Sonu Chakradhari, was loading sand into his tractor. Thereafter, a heated conversation took place between Sonu and the policemen, following which the policemen demanded Rs. 20,000/- from Sonu. Sonu refused to pay the said amount, whereupon the policemen started assaulting him with sticks. When Sonu started 3 proceeding towards the village in his tractor and, after travelling a short distance, the policemen attempted to stop the tractor, but when the vehicle did not stop, the accused Raju Prajapati also went behind the tractor. Thereafter, Nitin Shukla asked the applicant to sit in the Bolero vehicle and took the vehicle towards the river from the MP Border Ghat. The Bolero vehicle subsequently got stuck at Dumargaon. He submits that after some time, Raju Prajapati was seen running ahead of the applicant, while the villagers were also running behind him. The villagers caught all three persons and directed them to proceed towards Pasouri. At that time, both the policemen freed themselves and fled from the spot, whereas the villagers caught hold of the applicant, assaulted him, and took him towards the place of incident, where the deceased was lying with a head injury and bleeding. He submits that upon perusal of the memorandum statement, it is clear that the present applicant did not participate in the commission of the alleged offence. He had accompanied the policemen merely for the purpose of showing them the way and, except for the said circumstance, the applicant has no role whatsoever in the commission of the alleged crime. He submits that the present applicant has no criminal antecedents and he is in jail since 04.03.2026, conclusion of the trial may take some time, therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand learned State counsel opposes the bail application of the present applicant and submits that the charge-sheet has been submitted before the competent Court in the present case and also endorse the submission made by learned counsel, for the applicant that the present applicant has no criminal antecedent. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstance of the case, nature and gravity of 4 offence and further the fact that the applicant has no criminal antecedents. Also considering the fact that the charge-sheet has already been submitted in the present case before the competent Court and the present applicant has been in jail since 04.03.2026, the trial is likely to take sometime for its conclusion, therefore, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 7. Let applicant, Madhu Jaiswal @ Madhur Jaiswal, involved in Crime No. 18/2026 registered at Police Station : Arakshi Kendra Kelhari, District – Manendragarh – Chirmiri – Bharatpur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 103(1), 296, 308(3) and 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond with two local sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such 5 proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 351 of BNSS. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. 8. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek