GAURISHANKAR @ GAUTRIHA SAHU vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

CGHC010385632026 2026:CGHC:45165
NAFR
KUNAL
DEWANGAN
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Digitally
signed by
KUNAL
DEWANGAN
MCRC No. 9398 of 2026
Gaurishankar @ Gautriha Sahu S/o Vishnu Sahu Aged About 32 Years
R/o Awaspara, Bahatarai, P.S Sakri, Dist. Bilaspur (C.G.)
... Applicant(s)
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through The P.S Sakri, Dist. Bilaspur (C.G.)
... Non-Applicant(s)
For Applicant : Mr. S.C. Verma, Senior Advocate along
with Mr. Sajal Kumar Gupta, Advocate.
For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Govt. Advocate.
Hon'ble Mr. Rakesh Mohan Pandey, Judge
Order on Board
26/10/2026
1. The applicant has preferred this first bail application under Section
483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, as he has
been arrested in connection with Crime No. 373/2025, registered at
Police Station Sakri, District Bilaspur (C.G.), for the offence
punishable under Section 103(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,
2023.
2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 08.06.2025, at about 8:30
a.m., the applicant, namely Gauri Shankar @ Gautriha Sahu,
allegedly committed the murder of his wife, Ratna Sahu, at their

2
matrimonial residence situated at Awas Para, Bahatarai, District
Bilaspur. It is alleged that the deceased suspected the applicant of
having an illicit relationship with another woman, on account of
which frequent matrimonial disputes arose between them. On the
date of incident, during a quarrel over the said issue, the applicant
allegedly assaulted the deceased repeatedly on her head and face
with an iron tawa, causing multiple grievous injuries resulting in her
death at the spot. On the basis of the Dehati Nalishi lodged by
Suresh Kumar Sahu, maternal uncle of the deceased, the aforesaid
offence was registered against the applicant.
3. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the applicant would submit
that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the
present case. He would submit that the entire prosecution case
rests upon circumstantial evidence and there is no eyewitness to
the alleged occurrence. The material prosecution witnesses
examined so far, including PW-2, the mother of the deceased, have
not witnessed the alleged incident and their statements are primarily
based upon information received from other persons. He would
further submit that merely because there were matrimonial disputes
between the applicant and the deceased, the same cannot, by itself,
establish the applicant's involvement in the alleged commission of
murder.
4. Learned Senior Advocate would further submit that the prosecution
has placed reliance upon the alleged confessional statement of the
applicant, which is inadmissible in evidence. In support of his

3
submission, he would place reliance upon the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Aghnoo Nagesia v. State of Bihar , AIR
1966 SC 119, wherein it has been held that a confession made to a
police officer is inadmissible in evidence, except to the limited extent
permissible in respect of facts discovered pursuant to such
information. He would contend that the prosecution cannot rely
upon the inadmissible portions of the alleged confessional
statement to establish the motive or involvement of the applicant.
He would further submit that PW-1 Suresh Kumar Sahu, during his
cross-examination, categorically admitted that the applicant had not
stated in his presence that he had assaulted his wife with an iron
tawa. Thus, the alleged confessional statement cannot be treated
as an incriminating circumstance against the applicant.
5. Learned Senior Advocate would also submit that the scientific
evidence collected during investigation does not conclusively
connect the applicant with the alleged offence. As per the FSL
report, the blood grouping in respect of Exhibits F and G, relating to
the clothes allegedly seized from the applicant, was found to be
inconclusive. It is submitted that in the absence of any scientific
evidence establishing that the blood found on the seized articles
belonged to the deceased, the mere presence of human blood
cannot be treated as conclusive evidence against the applicant. He
would further submit that the testimony of PW-4 discloses
irregularities in the collection and handling of biological samples,
which also casts doubt upon the reliability of the forensic evidence.

4
6. Learned Senior Advocate would further submit that the applicant is
in judicial custody since 08.06.2025 and has undergone
incarceration for more than one year and four months. The
investigation has already been completed and the charge-sheet has
been filed. Out of 23 prosecution witnesses cited in the charge-
sheet, only five witnesses have been examined so far and 18
witnesses are yet to be examined. Therefore, the conclusion of trial
is likely to take considerable time. He would further submit that the
applicant cannot be subjected to indefinite pre-trial detention merely
on account of the seriousness of the allegations.
7. In support of his submission regarding prolonged incarceration and
the right to speedy trial, learned Senior Advocate would place
reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Mahesh Chandra Joshi v. State of Rajasthan , 2026 INSC 1141,
decided on 16.10.2026, arising out of SLP (Criminal) No.
15822/2026, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court emphasised that
the gravity of allegations alone cannot justify indefinite pre-trial
detention and that the right to personal liberty and speedy trial
guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India must
receive due consideration while deciding an application for bail. He
would submit that the principles laid down in the aforesaid judgment
are applicable to the present case, particularly considering the
period of incarceration already undergone by the applicant and the
slow progress of trial.
8. Lastly, learned Senior Advocate would submit that the applicant has

5
no criminal antecedents and is the sole earner of his family. He has
two minor daughters, aged approximately three years and fifteen
months, respectively, who are deprived of his care and support. The
applicant is also required to look after his aged and physically
disabled father, whose disability certificate has been filed as
Annexure A/4. He would further submit that since the investigation
is complete and the charge-sheet has already been filed, no further
custodial interrogation is required and there is no reasonable
apprehension of the applicant either absconding or tampering with
the prosecution evidence. Therefore, considering the totality of the
circumstances, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant.
9. On the other hand, learned State counsel would vehemently oppose
the prayer for grant of bail and submit that the applicant is facing a
serious allegation of having committed the murder of his own wife,
Ratna Sahu, on 08.06.2025 at about 8:30 a.m. inside their
matrimonial residence situated at Awas Para, Bahatarai, District
Bilaspur. It is submitted that the deceased suspected the applicant
of having an illicit relationship with another woman, on account of
which frequent matrimonial disputes arose between them. On the
date of incident, during a quarrel over the said issue, the applicant
allegedly assaulted the deceased repeatedly on her head and face
with an iron tawa, causing multiple grievous injuries, resulting in her
death at the spot.
10. Learned State counsel would further submit that the Dehati Nalishi
lodged by Suresh Kumar Sahu, maternal uncle of the deceased,

6
discloses that the applicant had been frequently quarrelling with and
assaulting the deceased after their marriage. The statements
recorded under Section 180 of BNSS wherein Suresh Kumar Sahu,
Santosh Kumar Sahu and Ganesh Ram Sahu also disclose that
earlier attempts were made to resolve the matrimonial disputes
through intervention of family members and counselling before the
Women's Police Station, Bilaspur. He would further submit that Dr.
Alka Sharma, a family counsellor, has stated in her statement
recorded under Section 180 of BNSS that the dispute between the
applicant and the deceased was taken up before the Family
Counselling Centre in December 2024, where counselling sessions
were conducted on 31.12.2024, 07.01.2025 and 14.01.2025.
Thereafter, the matter was settled upon both parties agreeing to live
peacefully. Thus, the prosecution has collected material indicating
previous matrimonial discord between the applicant and the
deceased, which is relied upon as a circumstance relating to the
alleged motive.
11. Learned State counsel would further submit that during
investigation, an iron tawa fitted with a wooden handle and bearing
suspected bloodstains was seized from the place of occurrence
near the body of the deceased. Apart from the said weapon,
bloodstained cotton collected from the floor, control cotton, broken
bangles and a polythene bag bearing suspected bloodstains were
also seized from the spot. It is further submitted that pursuant to the
memorandum statement attributed to the applicant, a maroon-
coloured T-shirt and black and light-blue shorts bearing suspected

7
bloodstains were seized at his instance. The clothes of the
deceased, including her saree, blouse, petticoat and
undergarments, along with other biological samples, were also
preserved and seized during investigation.
12. Learned State counsel would also submit that the memorandum
statement attributed to the applicant refers to the matrimonial
dispute arising out of the deceased's suspicion regarding his
relationship with another woman. It is alleged that the applicant
disclosed information concerning the assault with an iron tawa and
the concealment of his clothes, pursuant to which certain articles
were recovered. The prosecution relies upon the legally admissible
portion of the information, if any, leading to discovery of the articles,
along with the other circumstances collected during investigation.
13. Learned State counsel would further draw the attention of this Court
to the post-mortem report, which reveals multiple lacerated wounds
over the head and face of the deceased, including six intersecting
lacerated wounds over the left side of the face and forehead,
measuring approximately 11 × 8 cm, with underlying comminuted
fractures of the facial bones, orbital bone and left frontal bone. The
post-mortem examination also revealed extensive scalp
ecchymosis, subdural haemorrhage and subarachnoid
haemorrhage. The autopsy surgeon opined that all the injuries were
ante-mortem in nature, caused by a hard, heavy and blunt object,
and were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.
The cause of death was attributed to multiple injuries to the face

8
and head and their complications and the manner of death was
opined to be homicidal.
14. Learned State counsel would further submit that although there is
no direct eyewitness to the alleged occurrence, the prosecution
case is supported by circumstantial evidence, including the
previous matrimonial disputes between the applicant and the
deceased, the seizure of a bloodstained iron tawa from the place of
occurrence, the alleged recovery of bloodstained clothes and the
medical evidence indicating multiple fatal injuries on the head and
face of the deceased. He would further submit that the alleged
contradictions in the testimony of prosecution witnesses and the
inconclusive findings of the FSL report are matters requiring
appreciation during trial. It is submitted that the absence of direct
eyewitness evidence does not, by itself, render the prosecution
case doubtful at the stage of consideration of bail. Considering the
nature and gravity of the offence, the specific allegations against the
applicant and the material collected during investigation, the
applicant is not entitled to be released on bail merely on the ground
of prolonged incarceration. Therefore, he prays for rejection of the
bail application.
15. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused
the case diary as well as the material available on record.
16. Having considered the rival submissions advanced by learned
counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material available on
record, it appears that the applicant is facing an allegation of having

9
committed the murder of his wife, Ratna Sahu, on 08.06.2025
inside their matrimonial residence by allegedly inflicting repeated
blows upon her head and face with an iron tawa. The post-mortem
report reveals multiple ante-mortem injuries, including extensive
lacerated wounds over the face and head, comminuted fractures of
the facial bones and intracranial haemorrhages. The autopsy
surgeon has specifically opined that the injuries were caused by a
hard, heavy and blunt object, were sufficient to cause death in the
ordinary course of nature and that the death was homicidal in
nature. Thus, the medical evidence prima facie establishes that the
deceased suffered a violent homicidal death. It further appears that
the prosecution has collected material regarding previous
matrimonial disputes between the applicant and the deceased. The
statements recorded under Section 180 of BNSS wherein Suresh
Kumar Sahu, Santosh Kumar Sahu and Ganesh Ram Sahu,
coupled with the statement of Dr. Alka Sharma regarding
counselling proceedings conducted in December 2024 and January
2025, prima facie indicate that disputes had existed between the
spouses and that attempts had been made to resolve the same.
Although the existence of matrimonial discord, by itself, cannot
establish the applicant's guilt, the said material assumes relevance
as a circumstance relating to the alleged motive when considered
along with the other material collected during investigation.
17. So far as the contention of learned Senior Advocate that there is no
eyewitness to the occurrence and that the prosecution case rests
entirely upon circumstantial evidence is concerned, it is well settled

10
that the absence of direct eyewitness evidence does not, by itself,
render the prosecution case unsustainable. In the present case,
apart from the alleged motive, the prosecution relies upon the
seizure of an iron tawa bearing suspected bloodstains from the
place of occurrence near the body of the deceased, the collection of
bloodstained material from the spot and the alleged recovery of
clothes bearing suspected bloodstains at the instance of the
applicant. These circumstances, when considered along with the
medical evidence, constitute material requiring examination during
trial. Whether the prosecution has succeeded in establishing a
complete and unbroken chain of circumstances pointing towards
the guilt of the applicant is a matter to be determined by the learned
trial Court upon appreciation of the entire evidence.
18. As regards the reliance placed by learned Senior Advocate upon
the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Aghnoo Nagesia v.
State of Bihar , AIR 1966 SC 119, there can be no dispute regarding
the settled principle that a confessional statement made to a police
officer is inadmissible in evidence, except to the limited extent
permitted by law in relation to the discovery of facts. Accordingly,
the alleged confessional portion of the memorandum statement
attributed to the applicant cannot be treated as substantive
evidence of his guilt. However, the admissibility and evidentiary
value of any information leading to the discovery of articles, together
with the other circumstances relied upon by the prosecution, are
matters to be examined in accordance with law. The present
consideration of bail does not require this Court to determine

11
conclusively the admissibility or probative value of each item of
evidence.
19. This Court has also considered the submission regarding the
alleged contradictions and improvements in the testimony of PW-1
Suresh Kumar Sahu, particularly his admission during cross-
examination concerning the alleged statement attributed to the
applicant. Likewise, the submission that PW-2, the mother of the
deceased, is not an eyewitness has also been taken into
consideration. However, the prosecution case is founded upon
circumstantial evidence and not solely upon the testimony of the
aforesaid witnesses. The effect of the alleged contradictions, the
credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be attached to their
respective depositions are matters requiring appreciation during
trial. At this stage, it would not be appropriate to undertake a
detailed evaluation of their testimony or record any conclusive
finding which may prejudice either party.
20. So far as the FSL report is concerned, learned Senior Advocate has
specifically pointed out that the blood grouping in respect of Exhibits
F and G was found to be inconclusive. This Court is conscious of
the fact that an inconclusive blood-grouping result does not
establish that the blood detected on the seized articles belonged to
the deceased. Consequently, such a result cannot, by itself, be
treated as a conclusive circumstance connecting the applicant with
the alleged offence. Nevertheless, the inconclusive nature of the
said finding does not automatically negate the other circumstances

12
relied upon by the prosecution. Similarly, the alleged irregularities in
the collection and handling of biological samples, as pointed out
with reference to the testimony of PW-4, are matters requiring
examination during trial. The prosecution would be required to
establish the authenticity, admissibility and evidentiary value of the
relevant material in accordance with law.
21. This Court has further considered the submission regarding
prolonged incarceration and the slow progress of trial. The
applicant is stated to be in judicial custody since 08.06.2025 and
out of 23 prosecution witnesses cited in the charge-sheet, only five
witnesses have been examined so far. Thus, 18 prosecution
witnesses remain to be examined. The right to personal liberty and
speedy trial guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India
is undoubtedly an important consideration while deciding an
application for bail. However, the period of incarceration and the
pace of trial are required to be assessed in the light of the facts and
circumstances of each case, including the nature of the accusation,
the material available against the accused and the reasons for
delay, if any.
22. Learned Senior Advocate has also placed reliance upon the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mahesh Chandra Joshi
v. State of Rajasthan , 2026 INSC 1141, in support of the contention
that prolonged incarceration and delay in conclusion of trial
constitute relevant considerations for grant of bail. The principle that
an undertrial cannot be subjected to indefinite incarceration merely

13
on account of the gravity of the accusation is not in dispute.
However, the entitlement to bail must necessarily be examined on
the facts of the individual case. In the present case, having regard
to the specific allegation of murder of the applicant's wife within the
matrimonial residence, the nature and multiplicity of the fatal
injuries, the medical opinion regarding homicidal death and the
circumstantial material relied upon by the prosecution, this Court is
of the considered view that the period of incarceration undergone by
the applicant, though a relevant consideration, does not presently
outweigh the other circumstances bearing upon the prayer for grant
of bail. This Court has also taken into consideration the submission
that the applicant has no criminal antecedents, that the investigation
has been completed and the charge-sheet has already been filed,
and that his two minor daughters and aged, physically disabled
father are dependent upon him. While these circumstances deserve
consideration, the same cannot be viewed in isolation from the
nature of the accusation and the material collected during
investigation. The absence of criminal antecedents and completion
of investigation are relevant factors, but they do not confer an
automatic entitlement to bail in a case involving an allegation of
murder.
23. Thus, considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the
case, nature and gravity of the offence alleged against the
applicant, the specific allegation of repeated assault upon the head
and face of the deceased with a hard and blunt object, the post-
mortem findings indicating multiple fatal injuries and homicidal

14
death, the material relating to previous matrimonial disputes, the
recoveries effected during investigation and the other circumstantial
evidence relied upon by the prosecution and having also considered
the submissions regarding absence of eyewitnesses, alleged
contradictions in the prosecution evidence, inconclusive FSL
findings, prolonged incarceration, progress of trial and family
circumstances of the applicant, this Court, without expressing any
opinion on the merits of the case, does not find sufficient grounds at
this stage to enlarge the applicant on regular bail.
24. Accordingly, the present bail application is hereby dismissed .
25. It is made clear that the observations made hereinabove are
confined only to the consideration of the present bail application and
shall not influence the learned trial Court while deciding the case on
its own merits, in accordance with law.
- S/- Sd/-
(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)
Judge
Kunal