1 CGHC010305122026 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 2074 of 2026 Jitendra Kashyap, S/o Leeladhar Kashyap, aged about 27 years, R/o Village Karhi, Police Station Birra, District Janjgir-Champa Chhattisgarh (District name wrongly mentioned in impugned order) ... Appellant versus State of Chhattisgarh, Through District Magistrate, District Janjgir- Champa Chhattisgarh Police Station - Birra, District Janjgir-Champa Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Vivekanand Samaddar, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Kalpesh Ruparel, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order On Board 25/09/2026 1. None appeared on behalf of the victim/s though notice has been served. 2. This appeal is filed under Section 14(A)(ii) of the SCST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 for grant of regular bail to the appellant as he is arrested in connection with crime number 111/2025 registered at police station Birra, District Janjgir SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Digitally signed by SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Date: 2026.09.25 16:44:17 +0530 2 Champa (C.G.) for commission of offence punishable under Sections 103(2), 61(2)(a), 238 of BNS and under Section 3 (2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989. 3. As per the prosecution case, the main accused Rajkumar Sahu was misusing the post of his wife, who was the Sarpanch of the village, which was being opposed by the deceased Mahendra Baghel in his capacity as Upsarpanch. Due to the said reason, there was existing enmity between both the parties. On the date of incident i.e. 06.09.2025, when witnesses Amit Tandon and Manmohan Baghel were along with deceased Mahendra Baghel, at that relevant time, the main accused Rajkumar Sahu made a call on the mobile phone of Amit Tandon and asked him to send Mahendra Baghel alone to his house. Thereafter, Mahendra Baghel went alone to the house of main accused Rajkumar Sahu, but did not return, and subsequently his dead body was recovered. Thereafter, on the information given by Jitendra Baghel, brother of the deceased, and upon disclosure of the incident by the main accused Rajkumar Sahu in a fit of anger, a First Information Report was registered on 08.09.2025 against 08 persons and after completion of investigation, the charge- sheet has been filed. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant/accused would submit that in the present case, out of total 09 accused persons, 07 are major accused and 02 are juvenile in conflict with law, out of which the bail applications of 02 juveniles in conflict with law and three major co-accused Duresh Aditya, Shailesh Kashyap and Rajendra Kumar Sahu were allowed by this Court. The case of the present appellant/accused is completely identical to that of co-accused Durgesh Aditya. There is no direct evidence available against the appellant. Only seizure of mobile phone has been shown from the appellant, but no call details pertaining to the same have been produced on record. Even in the statements of witnesses Amit Tandon and Manmohan Baghel, there is no fact regarding the appellant being last seen together with the 3 deceased. There is no specific involvement of the appellant in the incident of murder. The appellant is in continuous custody since 09.09.2025. The appellant has no criminal antecedents. Out of 31 witnesses cited by the prosecution, only 04 witnesses have been examined so far. The trial is likely to take time. The impugned order passed by the learned trial Court is not in accordance with law, therefore, by setting aside the said order, the present appeal be allowed and the appellant/accused be released on regular bail. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent/State, opposing the present appeal, would submit that a named First Information Report has been registered against the appellant. The presence of the appellant was there at the place of occurrence at the time of incident. On the basis of disclosure statements prepared at their instance, seizure of mobile phone has been effected from him. He had participation in the incident of murder. Hence, the role of the appellant reflects his complicity and participation in this heinous offence, for which it would not be appropriate to extend the benefit of regular bail to the appellant/accused. Therefore, the present appeal seeking bail may be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 7. On a complete perusal of the record, it is evident that the First Information Report has been lodged after two days of the incident. The case against the appellants is not based on direct evidence, but rests upon circumstantial evidence. As circumstantial evidence, seizure of mobile phones has been shown from him. The appellant is in custody since 09.09.2025 and the trial of the case is likely to take considerable time. The bail application of similarly situated co-accused Durgesh Aditya has already been allowed on 01.07.2026. The case of the present appellant/accused is identical to his case. Considering the period of custody undergone by the appellant and the likely 4 time to be taken for conclusion of the trial, it is found appropriate to release the appellant/accused on regular bail. 8. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order passed by the Trial Court is set-aside. 9. It is directed that the appellant shall be released on bail on executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one solvent surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for his appearance before the said Court as and when directed. 10. The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the learned trial Court forthwith for information and necessary compliance. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge -Shubham