2026:CGHC:14683 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 2490 of 2026 Ritik Keshwani @ Babbu S/o Shri Chandrabhan Keshwani Aged About 23 Years R/o Ganga Vihar, Gali No. 04, P.S. New Rajendra Nagar, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Tikrapara, Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from the CIS) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Applicant : Shri Ajay Kumrani, Advocate For Respondent/State : Shri Vinod Tekam, GA ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 27.03.2026 1. Heard. 2. This is the 3rd bail application of the applicant who has been arrested on 24.04.2024 in connection with Crime No.319 of 2024 registered at Police Station Tikrapara, District-Raipur for the offence under Sections 294, 506, 323, 34 and 302 of the IPC, and 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. 3. The 1st bail application filed by the applicant was rejected by this Court in MCRC-2047 of 2025 vide order dated 02.04.2025, and the 2nd bail application was dismissed vide order dated 24.09.2025 passed in MCRC-6472 of 2025. Digitally signed by V PADMAVATHI Date: 2026.03.28 17:09:08 +0530 Mcrc 2490 of 2026 2 4. Case of the prosecution in brief is that on 22.04.2024 at about 7.30 pm, when the deceased Aryan Tomar came out from his house and roaming on the way, he was assaulted by knife by the co-accused Suraj and other accused persons by hands and fists. By the injuries caused to the deceased, he died on the spot. Merg intimation was lodged by father of the deceased and during investigation, memorandum statements of the accused and co-accused persons have been recorded. Based on the memorandum statements of the co-accused persons, present applicant has also been arrested, and his memorandum statement was also recorded. The knife, weapon of offence has been seized from the co-accused Suraj. Statement of the witnesses under Section 161 CrPC have been recorded and thereafter, charge-sheet has been filed. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that there is no allegation against the present applicant that he also assaulted the deceased by any weapon, or by hands and fists. There is no recovery of any weapon from the present applicant, and except the memorandum statement, there is no evidence against the applicant in the charge-sheet. The witnesses have clearly stated that the present applicant Ritik Keshwani was not present on the spot, and he has not committed any offence. He would further submit that based on the complain made by the complainants, the Police enquired into the matter, and submitted its enquiry report before the Senior Superintendent of Police, Raipur on 06.11.2024 that the Investigating Officer has committed irregularities in the investigation and the involvement of the present applicant in the offence in question is not found from the statement of the witnesses. He would draw attention of this Court towards the report dated 06.11.2024 submitted before the Senior Superintendent of Police, Raipur, which is annexed at page-91 of Mcrc 2490 of 2026 3 the bail application, and the report dated 04.02.2025 annexed at page-39 of the bail application. He would further submit that the injured Shubham Chandrakar, witness Sidhant Nishad, Sameer Sahu, have clearly stated in their statement that the present applicant was not present on the spot. It is also submitted that the Police submitted the supplementary charge-sheet on 22.01.2026 against the co-accused Jagesh Giri Goswami, in which it is also found by the Police that the present applicant was not present on the spot, and there is no evidence of involvement of present applicant in the incident is found. He would further submit that the applicant is in jail since 24.04.2024 and till date, the trial has not been concluded. Further, though 14 witnesses have been examined during trial but in view of filing of the supplementary charge-sheet against the co-accused Jayesh, the trial would restart from the beginning for cross-examination, against whom the supplementary charge- sheet has been filed, and there is every possibility for further delay in conclusion of the trial. He would further submit that when the statement of the witnesses and the charge-sheet specifically stated about non-involvement of the present applicant in the incident and offence in question, he may not be kept in pre-trial detention. He would also submit that although the earlier to two bail applications of the applicant have been dismissed by this Court but in view of filing of the supplementary charge-sheet against the co-accused jayesh and consideration of the police authority is that there is no evidence in the charge- sheet against the present applicant with respect to involvement of the present applicant in the offence, he may be released on bail. He would also submit that against the irregularities committed by the Investigating Officer in the investigation of the case, departmental enquiry proceeding is initiated against the erring Police personnel, and it is found that the memorandum statement of Mcrc 2490 of 2026 4 the accused persons as well as the applicant is recorded under pressure of the Police. He would also submit that the applicant has been implicated in the present offence on the ground that he is having certain criminal antecedents but the past criminal antecedents alone may not be a ground for rejection of his bail application as in the earlier offences registered against the applicant, he has been released on bail. When the evidence and the material available in the charge-sheet clearly demonstrate that the applicant was not present on the spot and the investigation is prima facie tainted, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail, and he may be benefited by granting of bail. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the submissions of learned counsel for the applicant and would submit that earlier, two bail applications of the applicant have been rejected on merits and therefore, he is not entitled for bail. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties, and perused the material annexed with the bail application, as well as case-diary. 8. From perusal of the record it transpires that the 1st bail application of the applicant has been rejected on 02.04.2025 considering that in the memorandum statement of all the accused persons, allegation against the applicant comes that he too has assaulted the deceased by hands and fists. While considering the 2nd bail application on 24.09.2025, the irregularities allegedly committed during the investigation were considered by this Court, and it was observed that the same is required evidence with respect the nature of said irregularities committed by the Police personnel during investigation and the 2nd bail application was dismissed on the ground that the Mcrc 2490 of 2026 5 1st bail applicant has already been dismissed on02.04.2025, and some of the witnesses have been examined and also that the applicant is having six criminal antecedents. The 3rd bail application of the applicant is filed after filing of the supplementary charge-sheet against the co-accused Jayesh and it is admitted on 17.03.2026 for the reason that the applicant is in jail since 24.04.2024 and by filing the supplementary charge-sheet in the case, trial of the present applicant would be hampered, which may again initiated from its initial stage and there is no substantial progress in trial. Along with the bail application, present applicant has annexed copy of the letter dated 06.11.2024, addressed to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Raipur for conducting preliminary enquiry in the case in which it is mentioned as under: " प्रकरण में दस्ता वेजों क अवेलोकन एवे कथन से स्पष्ट प्रताता होता हो, किक होत्या क प्रकरण में आरपिपया क बचा न क उद्देश्या से एक हो घटन क द प(थक-प(थक अपर ध दजों* किकया गया हो। प्रकरण में रिरताक कशवे न क न पिमेंता किकया गया हो जोंबकिक प्र थ/ नरत्तमें तामेंर एवे आवेदक पिसेद्धां ता पिनषा द वे श3भमें चाद्रा कर न अपन पिशक याता क कथन में रिरताक कशवे न क घटन में श पिमेंलो हो नहो6 होन बता या हो ताथ रिरताक कशवे न क श पिमेंलो रहोन क कई ठोसे से क्ष्या भ उपलोब्ध नहो6 हो;। जोंयाश पिगर क घटन में श पिमेंलो न कर उसे गवे हो क रूप में श पिमेंलो करन सेकिदग्ध परिरलोपि>ता होता हो।" 9. Pursuant to the said letter, the Additional Superintendent of Police (West), Raipur submitted the preliminary enquiry report dated 04.02.2025l before the Senior Superintendent of Police, Raipur, in which it is reported that there was serious irregularities committed by the Investigating Officer in the investigation, and the present applicant was not found present on the spot. The statement of injured Shubham chandrakar, Sameer Sahu and Sidhant Nishad Mcrc 2490 of 2026 6 were also considered in the preliminary enquiry report. The relevant part of the said enquiry report is re-produced hereunder: " प्र थपिमेंक जों चा क द?र न जोंयाश पिगर गस्वे में क कथन पिलोया गया पिजोंसेन अपन कथन में रपिवे टण्डे, सेBरजों नद, श3भमें पिगर गस्वे में क द्वा र घटन क रिरता करन बता या हो ताथ स्वेया क घटन स्थलो में उपपिस्थता होन बता या हो। परता3 रिरताक कशवे न क घटन स्थलो में उपपिस्थता नहो6 होन बता या हो। आहोता श3भमें चाद्रा कर और सेमेंर से हू, पिसेद्धां ता पिनषा द न भ अपन कथन में बता या हो किक घटन स्थलो पर घटन क द?र न रिरताक कशवे न उपपिस्थता नहो थ । रिरताक कशवे न क में ता - पिपता न अपन कथन में बता या हो किक किदन क घटन क उसेक प3त्र रिरताक कशवे न घटन स्थलो पर उपपिस्थता नहो थ , रिरताक कशवे न क मेंब ईलो नबर 9691736900 कG लोकशन क आध र पर भ इसे ब ता कG प3पिष्ट होता हो; किक घटन क द?र न वेहो घटन स्थलो सेगमें मेंरिरजों पलोसे क प से उपपिस्थता नहो थ । अप.क्र. 319/2024 ध र 294, 506, 323, 34, 302 भ ०द०पिवे० एवे सेहोपरिठोता ध र 25, 27 आर्म्ससे* एक्ट क तात्क लोन पिवेवेचान कता * उपिन.पवेन पटवे क द्वा र आशषा द से मेंहोता, लोकश से हू एवे ईश्वर बघलो क मेंमेंरण्डेमें कथन क आध र बन कर प्रकरण में रिरताक कशवे न क आरप से3पिनपिNता कर पिगरफ्ता र किकया गया हो। प्र थपिमेंक जों चा क द?र न मेंमेंरण्डेमें से > आशषा द से मेंहोता क कथन से स्पष्ट हो किक " किदन क 24.04.2024 इसेक से मेंन पBछता छ नहो6 हुआ हो। याहो ताथ्या सेहो हो किक इसेन मेंमेंरण्डेमें कथन किदन क 24.04.2024 में होस्ता >र किकया हो। इसे थ न रिटकर प र में क3छ पपर में होस्ता >र करन कहो गया पिजोंसे पर इसेन आपपित्त भ जोंता या, पिजोंसे पर उपिन. पटवे द्वा र याहो बलो गया किक आपक इसेक पपर पिमेंलो जों याग । याहो से में न्या प्रकिक्रया हो। उनक कहोन पर इसेन होस्ता >र करन बता या हो। इसे प्रक र ईश्वर बघलो क कथन से स्पष्ट हो किक इसेक से मेंन किकसे आरप से पBछता छ नहो6 हुआ हो। उप पिनर>क पटवे क द्वा र गवे हो में होस्ता >र करन क पिलोए कहोन पर याहो पिलोखा पढ़ी वे लो पपर में होस्ता >र करन बता या हो। इसे प्रक र लोकश से हू क कथन से भ स्पष्ट हो किक इसेक से मेंन किकसे आरप कG पBछता छ नहो6 होन प या गया हो " । इसेसे स्पष्ट हो किक रिरताक कशवे न घटन में उपपिस्थता नहो6 थ । उप पिनर>क पवेन पटवे द्वा र पिनर>क द3गVश र वेट क पिनदVश पर, त्र3रिटपBण* पिवेवेचान एवे झूBठो मेंमेंरण्डेमें कथन क आध र पर रिरताक कशवे न क आरप बन या हो ताथ पिगरफ्ता र कर जोंलो द पिखालो किकया हो। " Mcrc 2490 of 2026 7 10. It further transpires from the supplementary charge-sheet filed on 22.01.2026 submitted by the Police against the co-accused Jayesh that the Police authorities have found that the applicant was not found to be committed any offence and there is no evidence with respect to his involvement in the offence. This Court also perused statements of the witnesses Shubham Tiwari recorded on 10.12.2024, Sidhant Nishad recorded on 21.12.2024, Sameer Sahu recorded on 11.12.2024, and Jayesh recorded on 10.12.2024, wherein it is stated that present applicant was not present on the spot. The statement of Ashish Das Mahant, Eshwar Baghel, Lokesh Sahu have also stated that in their presence, there was no interrogation conducted from the accused persons, and they have signed the documents on the instance of the Police. This Court also perused the supplementary statement of the Shubham Tiwari, Sidhant Nishad and Sameer Sahu, recorded on 15.01.2026. However, they still remain saying that present applicant was not present on the spot at the time of incident. 11. From the preliminary enquiry report submitted before the Senior Superintendent of Police, Raipur, it transpires that the Investigating Office has committed irregularities in conducting investigation. The statement of the witnesses demonstrated denial of presence of the applicant on the spot at the time of commission of offence. 12. Applicant is presently in jail since 24.04.2024. During trial of the case, 14 witnesses have been examined till 13.11.2025 and thereafter, a supplementary charge-sheet has been filed by the prosecution on 22.01.2026 against the co- accused Jayesh. When the supplementary charge-sheet has been filed by the co-accused, it is required to frame charge against him in the case, and to Mcrc 2490 of 2026 8 proceed with the trial. During the trial, the opportunity to cross-examination of the witnesses, who have already been examined ought to have provided to him. Further, the supplementary charge-sheet introduced 8 more witnesses apart from the 20 cited witnesses in the earlier charge-sheet, which may cause substantial delay in trial of the case. Under these changed circumstances, the 3rd bail applicant was admitted, and considered by this order. Though the applicant is having certain criminal antecedents, which may be relevant consideration while granting or rejecting the bail application of the applicant, but in view of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Prabhakar Tewari Vs State of UP and another (2020) 11 SCC 648, wherein it was held that criminal antecedents should not be sole ground for rejection of the bail application; and in view of the order dated 22.04.2022 passed in MCRC-15398 of 2022 by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in case of Pappu @ Rajaram Vs the State of MP, this Court is of the considered opinion that criminal antecedents cannot be the sole ground to reject the bail application of the applicant. Hence, this court is inclined to allow the bail application of the applicant for granting bail to the present applicant on the peculiar facts of present case, and also on the ground of delay in conclusion of the trial. 13. Accordingly, the bail application filed by the applicant- Ritik Keshwani @ Babbu, s/o Shri Chandrabhan Keshwani is allowed, and he shall be released on bail on his executing a personal bond in sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety of like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court. Applicant shall also abide by the following conditions: Mcrc 2490 of 2026 9 a) The applicant will cooperate in the investigation/trial, and will not indulge himself in extending inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court; b) The applicant shall not involve in any other offence, in case the applicant indulge in any other criminal case the benefit of bail as extended by this Court shall automatically cancelled; c) Applicant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial and shall appear on each and every date of hearing of the case unless exempted by the learned trial Court; d) The applicant shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial; e) The applicant will not leave India without previous permission of the trial court. 14. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits and whatever observation made in the instant order is restricted only to the consideration of bail application of the applicant. The trial Court shall decide the case on its own merits, without influencing any observation made in the present order. 15. Certified copy as per rules. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) JUDGE padma