MCRC/7087/2026 of SHIVAM YADAV Vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH on 13 October 2026

1. The applicant has preferred this first bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 189/2025 registered at Police Station Dongargarh,

District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 103(1) and 3(5) of BNS.

2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that dead body of Bheemlal Netam was recovered on 03/05/2025 in the courtyard of the Primary School and thereafter, merg intimation was given by the brother of the deceased and dehati nalishi was registered. During the course of the investigation, the present applicant and two other co-accused persons namely Bhaskar Verma and Rahul Verma were taken into custody. Memorandum statements of the accused persons were recorded and co-accused Rahul Verma admitted the fact that a knife blow was inflicted by him on the body of the deceased whereas the present applicant and co-accused Bhaskar Verma assisted him by holding the deceased. As such, the aforesaid offences were registered against the accused persons.

3. Mr. Pranav Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the applicant, would argue that there is no direct evidence against the present applicant. FIR was registered against unknown person and the applicant herein has been implicated in the case on the strength of memorandum statement of co-accused Rahul Verma, however, the knife used for commission of offence has been recovered on the instance of co-accused Rahul Verma. He would further submit that there is no previous criminal antecedent of the applicant, charge-sheet has already been filed and the applicant is in jail since 03/05/2025 and since conclusion of trial is likely to take considerable time, therefore, the applicant may be released on bail.

4. On the other hand, Ms. Laxmeen Kashyap, learned counsel appearing for the non-applicant/State, would oppose the bail application and submit that the present applicant along with two other co-accused persons namely Bhaskar Verma and Rahul Verma have committed murder of the deceased. She would submit that co-accused Rahul Verma, in his memorandum statement, has categorically stated that present applicant as well as co-accused Bhaskar Verma were also involved in commission of the crime in question, thus, she would pray for rejection of the bail application.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.

6. Having considered the fact that there is no direct evidence against the present applicant and he has been implicated solely on the basis of memorandum statement of co-accused Rahul Verma; further considering that charge-sheet has already been filed, the applicant has no criminal antecedent, he is in judicial custody since 03/05/2025, and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, without commenting on the merits of the case, this Court is inclined to enlarge the applicant on regular bail. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

7. It is directed that in the event of the applicant executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court, he shall be released on bail, on following conditions :-

(i) he shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such fact to the Court,

(ii) he shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial, and

(iii) he shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to him by the said Court till disposal of the trial.

8. The observation made hereinabove is for the purpose of deciding this bail application only, the trial Court shall decide the case on its own merits. Sd/-

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)

JUDGE Harneet