1 CGHC010365622026 2026:CGHC:42871 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 8737 of 2026 Anil Rajak S/o Vinod Rajak Aged About 22 Years R/o Titupara Ward No.09, Police Station - Simga, District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer- Police Station - Torwa, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) --- Respondent (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Applicant : Ms. Divya Sahu, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Rishi Raj Pithawa, Deputy G.A. along with Ms. Richa Sahu, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 01/10/2026 1. This is the first bail application seeking grant of bail to the applicant, who is in jail since 16.09.2024 in connection with Crime No. 359/2024 registered at Police Station Torwa, District Bilaspur for the offences punishable under Sections 61(2), 103 and 238 read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. As per the prosecution case, on 13.09.2024 at about 2:00 PM, the dead body of the deceased, Devendra Banarjee, who was the VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2026.10.05 18:26:54 +0530 2 husband of co-accused Anjali Banarjee (Gritlahre), was found in a field near village Dheka-Khapri, Raipur Bypass Road. The dead body was identified as that of Devendra Banarjee. During investigation, the mobile call details of co-accused Anjali Banarjee were obtained and, after collecting the relevant evidence, the present applicant was arrested and his memorandum statement was recorded. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that there is no direct evidence against the present applicant and that he has been implicated in the offence only on the basis of the memorandum statement. It is further submitted that no incriminating material could be extracted from the mobile phone allegedly seized from the applicant to connect him with the offence in question. There is also no evidence to show that the mobile phone allegedly seized from the present applicant was registered in his name. The call detail report is not admissible in evidence and is not, by itself, authentic proof of his involvement in the offence in question. The applicant is in jail since 16.09.2024 and final adjudication of the case is likely to take considerable time. Out of a total of 27 witnesses, 7 witnesses have been examined. He would further submit that the co-accused, Anjali Banarjee (Gritlahre) @ Naina, has been released on bail by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 20.03.2026 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 1550 of 2026. Therefore, the present applicant may also be released on bail. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application and submits that it is a case of contract killing in which the 3 husband of co-accused Anjali Banerjee was murdered. She had allegedly given a contract to kill her husband to the accused persons through co-accused Deepak Mahileshwar. From the memorandum statement of co-accused Anjali Banerjee, it has been disclosed that she gave the contract to Deepak Mahileshwar, who ultimately conspired with his friend Vicky Lahare, Anil Rajak (present applicant) and Kamal Mahileshwar, and they committed the murder of the deceased. In the memorandum statement of Deepak Mahileshwar, the name of Vicky has been disclosed, and in the memorandum statement of Vicky, the name of the present applicant surfaced, showing that all of them had conspired and committed the murder of the deceased. He would further submit that from the memorandum statement of co-accused Anjali Banerjee, the motive for committing the murder of the deceased has been disclosed and that it was only to eliminate him that the accused persons conspired and committed his murder by causing an injury to his neck. There is sufficient material in the charge-sheet against the applicant, and the offence was committed pursuant to a conspiracy hatched with the other accused persons. The trial of the case is in progress and, out of a total of 27 witnesses, 7 witnesses have already been examined. He would further submit that the bail granted to co-accused Anjali Banerjee by the Hon'ble Supreme Court was on the ground that she is a lady and has minor children to take care of. Therefore, the case of the present applicant is distinguishable from that of co-accused Anjali Banerjee. In view of the aforesaid allegations against the present applicant, he is not entitled to be released on bail. 4 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the nature of allegations, the material collected during investigation and the evidence available in the charge-sheet against the present applicant, and further considering the fact that the trial of the case is in progress and, out of a total of 27 witnesses, 7 witnesses have already been examined, this Court is of the opinion that the present is not a fit case where the applicant can be enlarged on bail. The co-accused Anjali Banerjee has been granted bail by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the ground that she is a lady and has minor children to take care of. Therefore, no benefit can be extended to the present applicant on the ground that the co-accused Anjali Banerjee has been released on bail. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of the present applicant, Anil Rajak, is rejected. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge ved