PURUSHOTTAM YADAV vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

CGHC010346272026 2026:CGHC:44705
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No. 9243 of 2026
Purushottam Yadav S/o Bhujbal Yadav Aged About 35 Years R/o Village
Bagdabri, Post Khisora, Police Station Balouda, Distt- Janjgir- Champa
(C.G.)
... Applicant(s)
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Koni, Distt- Bilaspur (C.G.)
... Non-Applicant(s)
For Applicant : Mr. Sudeep Verma, Advocate.
For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Ankita Shukla, Panel Lawyer
Hon'ble Mr. Rakesh Mohan Pandey, Judge
Order on Board
15/10/2026
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.
264/2026 registered at Police Station Koni, District Bilaspur (C.G.),
for the offences punishable under Sections 309(4) and 3(5) of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that the complainant, Priyanshu
Sahu, lodged a written report on 27.05.2026 stating that his driver,

2
Jitendra Kumar, had parked the complainant’s trailer bearing
registration No. CG-10-BL-8136 near Sendri Automobile on the
roadside of the National Highway at about 8:00 p.m. on 23.04.2026,
after the vehicle had broken down. At around 3:30 a.m. on
24.04.2026, upon hearing the sound of the diesel tank being
broken, the driver woke up and allegedly saw four unknown
persons removing diesel from the vehicle. When he objected, they
allegedly threatened him by showing a firearm, looted the diesel and
fled from the spot. On the basis of the report, the aforesaid crime
was registered. During investigation, the present applicant and
other accused persons were interrogated, and in their
memorandum statements, they allegedly disclosed their
involvement in the commission of the offence along with other co-
accused persons.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant is
innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He
would further submit that there is no prima facie evidence against
the applicant except the memorandum statement. He would also
submit that the applicant has been in jail since 27.05.2026 and that
the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time therefore, he
prays for grant of bail to the applicant.
4. On the other hand, learned State counsel would oppose the prayer
for grant of bail and submit that the applicant, along with other co-
accused persons, allegedly committed robbery of diesel from the
complainant’s trailer after threatening the driver with a firearm. He

3
would further submit that the bail applications of similarly situated
co-accused Amit Kumar Bharadwaj and Sanjay Kurre have already
been rejected by this Court and a coordinate Bench of this Court in
MCRC No. 7567/2026 and MCRC No. 7756/2026, vide orders
dated 28.09.2026 and 20.08.2026, respectively, on the ground of
their criminal antecedents. The applicant also has two criminal
antecedents, both of which are pending consideration. Therefore,
the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail.
5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused
the case diary.
6. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, nature
and gravity of the offence alleged against the applicant and the fact
that the bail applications of similarly situated co-accused Amit
Kumar Bharadwaj and Sanjay Kurre have already been rejected by
this Court and a coordinate Bench of this Court in MCRC No.
7567/2026 and MCRC No. 7756/2026, vide orders dated
28.09.2026 and 20.08.2026, respectively, on the ground of their
criminal antecedents and that the present applicant also has two
criminal antecedents as has been explained in the bail application
of part-D criminal antecedents, it appears that the present
applicant is a habitual offender, further he has misused the bail
granted to him earlier, and also in light of the judgment rendered
by the Hon’ble Court in Deepak Yadav Vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh & Another, reported in (2022) 8 SCC 559 , wherein the
Hon’ble Supreme Court had cancelled the bail granted to the

4
accused therein on the ground that the accused had previous
antecedents, this Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case to
enlarge the applicant on regular bail. Accordingly, the bail
application of applicant – Purshottam Yadav involved in Crime
No. 264/2026 registered at Police Station Koni, District Bilaspur
(C.G.), for the offences punishable under Sections 309(4) and 3(5)
of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. , is rejected .
- S/- Sd/-
(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)
Judge
Kunal