SHIVANI SHARMA vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

CGHC010287042026 2026:CGHC:46214
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No. 6730 of 2026
 Shivani Sharma W/o Ankit Upadhyay Aged About 24 Years R/o
Satyam Vihar Colony, Raipura, Gali No. 4, Near Manjeet Green
City, House No. 383 Police Station D.D. Nagar Raipur, District-
Raipur (C.G.)
... Applicant
versus
 State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Police Station D.D. Nagar Raipur,
District- Raipur (C.G.)
... Non-applicant
For Applicant : Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Senior Advocate
assisted by Mr. Aditya Dhar Diwan, Advocate
For Non-applicant : Mr. Sharad Mishra, G.A.
Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
Order On Board
02.11.2026
1) The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under
Section 483 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant
of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime
No. 255/2025, registered by Police Station D.D. Nagar, District
Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 103(1),
238(A), 61(2)(A) and 3(5) of Bhartiya Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

2
2) The prosecution case, in brief, is that the complainant, Vishnu
Sahu, lodged a complaint on 23.06.2026 to the effect that
unknown persons had murdered an unidentified male, placed the
dead body in a trunk, and abandoned it near Diprapara Nala,
behind Wonderland Water Park, Raipur, between 12:00 pm and
02:00 pm on 23.06.2026. During the course of the investigation,
the dead body was identified by the brother of the deceased. The
police also retrieved CCTV footage wherein the accused persons,
including the present applicant, were identified, and their
memorandum statements were recorded. Thereafter, they were
implicated in the aforesaid offence, and the applicant was
arrested on 25.06.2026.
3) Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
applicant, submits that the applicant is an innocent woman who
has been falsely implicated in the present case on the basis of
memorandum statements, whereas only the recovery of a scooty
and a mobile phone has been effected from her. He further
submits that the co-accused persons, against whom there were
allegations of screening the offence, have already been enlarged
on bail by the learned Trial Court. He contends that the trial is
progressing at a slow pace, as only 16 out of a total of 34
prosecution witnesses have been examined till date. He also
points out that the applicant has no criminal antecedents and has
been languishing in jail since 25.06.2025; therefore, as the

3
conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, he prays for the
grant of regular bail to the applicant .
4) On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail
application and submits that two co-accused persons were
enlarged on bail by the learned Trial Court. In those orders, the
Court categorically held that the role of the applicants therein was
confined to disposing of the dead body and screening the offence,
whereas the grievous knife injuries were attributed to the
applicant’s husband, and she assisted him in the commission of
murder.
5) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case
diary.
6) A careful perusal of the case diary would reveal that on
23.06.2025, an abandoned trunk containing the dead body of an
unidentified male was recovered near Diprapara Nala, behind
Wonderland Water Park, Raipur. The deceased was identified as
Kishore Paikra. During the course of the investigation, the police
retrieved CCTV footage wherein the accused persons, including
the present applicant, were seen loading the said trunk into a car.
The police seized a scooty and a mobile phone from the
possession of the applicant, alleging that the trunk in question
was purchased using the applicant’s mobile phone through UPI.
7) In this bail application, the applicant has taken the plea of parity,

4
stating that the other accused persons, namely Vinay Yadu and
Suryakant Yadu, have been enlarged on bail by the learned Trial
Court. However, it is worth mentioning that the role of those
individuals was confined to disposing of the dead body and
screening the offence, whereas the grievous act of murder was
exclusively attributed to the present applicant and her husband.
Therefore, in view of the aforesaid discussion, the ground of parity
is not available to the present applicant.
8) It is a settled principle of law that the Court’s role at the stage of
bail is confined to verifying the existence of a prima facie case.
The recovery of the mobile phone from the applicant, which was
used to purchase the trunk in question, links the applicant to the
aforesaid offence. Furthermore, the CCTV footage shows the
accused persons, including the present applicant, loading the said
trunk into a car. Thus, in my considered view, the active
participation of the present applicant in the commission of the
aforesaid offence cannot be ruled out.
9) It is also contended in this bail application that only 16 out of a
total of 34 prosecution witnesses have been examined till date,
and most of them have not supported the case of the prosecution.
However, the reliability and credibility of the prosecution witnesses
cannot be tested at the stage of considering a bail application,
and the applicant will have sufficient opportunity to substantiate

5
her plea of innocence by placing the relevant material before the
learned Trial Court during the trial.
10) Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and the
gravity of the offence alleged against the applicant, this Court is not
inclined to extend the benefit of bail to the applicant at this stage.
11) Accordingly, the instant bail application is rejected.
Sd/-
(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)
JUDGE
A j i n k y a