MUKESH DAS MAHANT vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

CGHC010388382026 2026:CGHC:46954
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 2530 of 2026
1 - Mukesh Das Mahant S/o Late Agar Das Mahant Aged About 24
Years R/o Dholpur, P.S. Hardibazar, Presently R/o Gevra Basti, P.S.
Kusmunda District -Korba (C.G.)
... Appellant
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station AJAK, Korba, District -
Korba (C.G.) (Correclly Mentioned As Per Impugned Order Page 8 A /
1)
... Respondent
For Appellant : Mr. Anshul Tiwari, Advocate
For Respondent/State : Mr. Kalpesh Ruparel, P.L.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal
Order On Board
05/11/2026
1. This criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
(for short ‘the Act, 1989’) has been filed against the order dated
21.08.2026 passed by the Special Judge under S.C./S.T. (P.A.)

2
Act,. Korba, District Korga for grant of regular bail to the appellant,
who has been arrested in connection with Crime No.144/2025
registered at Police Station – AJAK Korba, District Korba (C.G.)
for commission of offence punishable under Section 80(2) of BNS
and Section 3(2)(v) of the Act 1989.
2. Case of the prosecution is that on 17.01.2025, in connection with
the death of deceased - Kajal Bhardwaj, who is sister-in-law
(bhabhi) of the appellant and wife of co-accused Kamlesh Mahant,
age 21 years, resident of Somwari Bazar Dipka, Police Station
Dipka, District Korba, the informant/resident of District Hospital
Korba, came and presented the hospital memo, in which it was
written that the deceased died on the date of the incident, which
was taken up in Panchnama proceedings by establishing Merg on
the report of the informant. After the Merg Panchnama, as the
place of incident was Police Station Dipka, the actual Merg was
registered in Police Station Dipka, and on investigation, it was
found that the deceased consumed poison due to demand of
dowry and being of scheduled caste and being fed up with the
harassment by her in-laws, Crime No. 144/2025 under Section 80
(2) BNS was registered in Police Station Dipka. The investigation
revealed that the present appellant along with other co-accused
persons had been harassing the newly married woman,
deceased/Kajal Bhardwaj, on the pretext that she had not brought
dowry because she belonged to a scheduled caste. The
victim/Kajal Bhardwaj, consumed poison and died during

3
treatment in District Hospital Korba. During investigating, the
appellant and other co-accused persons namely Kamlesh Mahant
(husband of the deceased), Laxmin Bai (mother-in-law of the
deceased), Ragni Mahant (sister-in-law of the deceased),
Rajkumari Markam (sister-in-law of the deceased) (brother in law)
and Ramayan Singh Markam (son-in-law of the deceased) have
been taken into custody by Police Station AJAK, Korba on
25.11.2025 and the aforesaid offences have been registered
against them.
3. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the
appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case.
He further submits that in the present crime, five co-accused
persons have already been enlarged on bail vide order dated
02.02.2026 passed in CRA No.68/2026, and the case of the
present appellant is at par with that of the said co-accused
persons. It is further submitted that Narayan Prasad Bhardwaj
(PW-1) and Leela Bai Bhardwaj (PW-2), father and mother of the
deceased respectively, in their court statements, have not made
any specific allegation against the present appellant. Learned
counsel also submits that the appellant has been in custody since
18.02.2026 and the trial is likely to take considerable time to
conclude. Therefore, considering the period of detention, parity
with the co-accused persons who have been granted bail, and the
likelihood of delay in conclusion of the trial, it is prayed that the
appellant may be enlarged on bail.

4
4. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for the State
opposes the bail application.
5. The complainant/victim did not appear before this Court through
video conferencing despite the notice.
6. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties and
perused the documents available on record.
7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly
taking into consideration the fact that co-accused persons in CRA
No.68/2026, have already been granted bail, the period of
detention undergone by the appellant, and the likelihood of the
trial taking some time to conclude, without expressing any opinion
on the merits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that it would
be appropriate to release the appellant on bail.
8. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated
21.08.2026 passed by the learned Trial Court is set-aside.
9. It is directed that the appellant shall be released on bail on his
executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one
surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for his
appearance before the said Court as and when directed.
Sd/-

( Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal )
Judge
Digitally signed by
VIJAY BHARATRAO
PEKDE
Date: 2026.11.05
16:41:02 +0530
pekde