Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 6742
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Arvind Kumar Verma, J
Somnath @ Sonu – Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
MCRC No. 3960 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. C.R. Sahu, Mr. Vinod Kumar Dewangan
For the Respondents: Mr. Praveen Das
Bail denied due to direct involvement in violent crime, despite claims of innocence and lack of eyewitnesses.
Headnote:The court analyzed the application for bail under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, noting the applicant's arrest in connection with a serious crime. The prosecution alleged that the applicant was involved in the assault leading to a death. The court found no substantial evidence to support the bail due to direct involvement indicated. The main issue was whether the bail should be granted considering co-accused cases. The applicant's involvement was determined to be clear and thus denied bail. The application was rejected.
Order on Board
12.06.2025
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. 710/2024 registered at Police Station vidhansabha, district Raipur, Bhatapara (C.G.), for the offences punishable under Sections 140(3), 103(1), 190, 191(3) of BNS.
2. The prosecution's story, in brief, is that on the date of incident, the accused persons were forcefully carried the Harish Sahu by their vesicle at BSUP colony Suddu Block No. 24 where they have assaulted him by hand and wooden stick due to this, Harish Sahu sustained injuries and subsequently died. Based upon the complaint the police has registered FIR for the offence punishable under the afore mentioned sections.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant is innocent person and has been falsely implicated in the aforesaid case. He submits that the applicant is the friend of the deceased and he has neither been assaulted upon his friend deceased and has no any intention to commit murder to the deceased and not committed any aforesaid offences as alleged by the prosecution in connection of said crime. There is no eye witnesses in this case and the present applicant only on the basis of the suspicious circumstantial evidence has been made an accuse. He also contended that the other co-accused have been granted bail by this court in MCRC No. 2826 of 2025 vide order dated 25.04.2025. The trial is likely to take some considerable time to conclude, hence he prays for grant of bail to the present applicant on the basis of parity.
4. On the other hand learned State counsel opposes the bail application of the present applicant and submits that the co- accused who have been granted bail by this court is very much different and the involvement of the present applicant in the said crime is direct and clear.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.
6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, this court finds that there is a direct involvement of the present applicant in the said crime and the co-accused i.e. Churawan Yadav who has been granted bail by this court vide order dated 25.04.2025 in MCRC No. 2826 of 2025 has an entirely different case. Therefore, this case is not inclined to allow the bail application of the present applicant.
7. Accordingly, the present MCRC stands rejected.
