ISHWAR SAHU vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1


2026:CGHC:21409
Digitally
signed by
VAISHALI
LUCKY
NAGARIA
Date:
2026.05.08
18:16:03
+0530
VAISHALI
LUCKY
NAGARIA
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No. 4282 of 2026
1 - Ishwar Sahu S/o Tukaram Sahu Aged About 30 Years R/o Village
Dutkaiya (Khapri), P.S. Rajim, District Gariabandh, C.G.
2 - Amarsingh Sahu S/o Omkar Sahu Aged About 26 Years R/o Village
Dutkaiya Khapri, P.S. Rajim, District Gariabandh, C.G.
3 - Manoj Kumar Sahu S/o Dhanesh Sahu Aged About 32 Years R/o
Village Dutkaiya (Khapri), P.S. Rajim, District Gariaband, C.G.
4 - Vicky @ Vyanktesh Sahu S/o Angesh Sahu Aged About 24 Years R/o
Village Dutkaiya (Khapri), P.S. Rajim, District Gariabandh, C.G.
... Applicant(s)
versus
1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station-
Rajim, District- Gariabandh, Chhattisgarh
... Respondent(s)
(Cause title is taken from Case Information System)
For Applicant(s) : Mr. Siddharth Pandey, Advocate
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Smriti Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice
Order on Board
07.05.2026
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 they have been arrested in connection with Crime No.
31/2026, registered at Police Station – Rajim, District – Gariabandh
(C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 296, 115(2), 351(3),
332(b), 332(c), 109(1), 190, 191(2), 191(3), 326(g), 238, 117(2), 118(2)

2
of BNS.
2. The case of the prosecution, is that a Dehati-Nalsi was lodged by the
Complainant / Kasmuddin Quraishi @ Raju Khan on 02.02.2026 at
about 13.30 hours to the effect that he is a matriculation pass and
does the business of property dealing. It was further alleged that his
neighbour, namely, Aarif Khan, went to jail for breaking and
damaging Shivaling and after getting released from jail, he created a
ruckus in the village by assaulting the villagers of Village Dutkaiya
and nearby villagers of Village Parsada on the intervening night of
31.01.2026 to 01.02.2026. It was further alleged that on account of
the said ruckus, the villagers got annoyed on 01.02.2026. It has also
been alleged that the villagers/the victims of assault and ruckus
committed by Aarif Khan, surrounded the Complainant and his
family members, damaged his house and abused him filthily when
the complainant and his family members restrained them. It is also
alleged that the villagers, namely, Bhupendra Sahu, Upendra Sahu,
Amar Sahu, Bholashankar Sahu, Karan Patel and all other residents
of Village Dutkaiya (Khapri), in furtherance of their common
intention, committed marpeet with the complainant and caused
injuries by knife, rod, and stick and the articles kept in the house
and the vehicles were put on fire. It was further alleged that the
neighbours of the complainant, namely, Anwar Khan and Balla @
Amjad Khan, were also assaulted by the miscreants and their houses
as well as vehicles were also set ablaze. It was also alleged that the
accused persons, namely, Bhupendra Sahu, Upendra Sahu, Amar
Singh Sahu, Bhola Shankar Sahu, Karan Patel and other persons
assaulted the complainant using an iron rod and bricks, which
caused injury to the Police personnel who were carrying away the

3
complainant and other victims of the incident. On the basis of the
aforesaid, an FIR bearing Crime No. 31/2026 for the offence
punishable under Sections 296, 115 (2), 351 (3), 332 (b), 332 (c), 109
(1), 190, 191 (2), 191(3), 326 (g) of B.N.S.
3. It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicants that the
applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case.
It is further submits that the entire incident is attributable to Aarif
Khan, because of whom the alleged incident took place. Aarif Khan
firstly created a ruckus in the concerned village, and thereafter
committed marpeet, and caused injuries to the residents of the
village. After getting annoyed from the aforesaid actions of Aarif
Khan, the alleged incident took place, which is crystal clear from the
contents of the FIR also lodged by Complainant himself. He further
submits that charge-sheet has been filed in this case. The applicants
No. 1, 3 and 4 are in jail since 01.04.2026 and applicant No.2 is in
jail since 07.04.2026 trial is likely to take quite long time for its
conclusion, therefore, he prays for grant of bail.
4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposes the bail
application and submits that the applicant is not entitled for grant of
bail. He further contended that there are in total 30 accused persons
involved in the present case, out of which 8 accused persons are still
absconding, whereas 22 accused persons are presently in judicial
custody. It is submitted that the large number of accused persons
involved clearly reflects the seriousness and organized nature of the
offence. It is further submitted that there are 16 injured persons in
the present case; however, medical examination of only 3 injured
persons could be conducted, while the remaining 13 injured persons
refused to undergo medical examination. Despite such refusal, the

4
statements of the injured witnesses and other material collected
during investigation prima facie establish the involvement of the
accused persons in the alleged offence, therefore she is not entitle for
grant of bail.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused all of the
documents available on record.
6. Considering the nature and gravity of the offence and material
available on record in the case diary and also considering the fact
that there are in total 30 accused persons involved in the present
case, out of which 8 accused persons are still absconding, whereas
22 accused persons are presently in judicial custody. Further, the
large number of accused persons involved clearly reflects the
seriousness and organized nature of the offence and there are 16
injured persons in the present case; however, medical examination of
only 3 injured persons could be conducted, while the remaining 13
injured persons refused to undergo medical examination. Despite
such refusal, the statements of the injured witnesses and other
material collected during investigation prima facie establish the
involvement of the accused persons in the alleged offence, as such, I
am not inclined to grant bail to the applicant.
7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant No.1 – Ishwar Sahu,
applicant No.2 – Amarsingh Sahu , applicant No.3- Manoj Kumar
Sahu and applicant No.4 – Vicky @ Vyanktesh Sahu, filed under
Section 482 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 involved in
Crime No.31/2026, registered at Police Station – Rajim, District –
Gariabandh (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 296,

5
115(2), 351(3), 332(b), 332(c), 109(1), 190, 191(2), 191(3), 326(g),
238, 117(2), 118(2) of BNS, is rejected .
8. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed
and conclude the trial expeditiously.
9. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial
Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith.
Sd/-
(Ramesh Sinha)
Chief Justice
vaishali