CHANDAN YADAV vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

Digitally signed
by AJINKYA
PANSARE
Date:
2026.10.16
10:48:26
+0530
1

CGHC010326662026 2026:CGHC:44637
NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No. 7820 of 2026
1. Chandan Yadav S/o Kashiram Yadav, Aged About 22 Years R/o
Village Kendri, Bhathapara, Near Water Tank, Police Station -
Abhanpur, District - Raipur (C.G.)
2. Chandrashekhar Sahu, S/o Shrtughan Sahu, Aged About 28
Years R/o - Village Kendri, Ward No. 2 Police Station - Abhanpur,
District - Raipur (C.G.)
--- Applicant
versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police
Station - Abhanpur, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.)
--- Non-applicant
WITH
MCRC No. 7972 of 2026
1. Lilesh Sen S/o Ishwar Sen Aged About 26 Years R/o New
Subhash Nagar, Ward No. 62 Tikrapara, Raipur, District- Raipur
(C.G.)
--- Applicant
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police
Station Abhanpur, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)
--- Non-applicant

2
For Applicants : Ms. Fouzia Mirza, Senior Advocate
assisted by Mr. Naveen Shukla, Advocate
For Non-applicant : Mr. Keshav Prasad Gupta, G.A.
Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
Order On Board
15.10.2026
1) The applicants have preferred these First Bail Applications under
Section 483 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant
of regular bail, as they have been arrested in connection with
Crime No. 29/2026, registered by Police Station Abhanpur,
District : Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections
103(1), 115(2), 191(2) and 296 of Bhartiya Suraksha Sanhita,
2023.
2) The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 14.01.2026 at
around 11:00 PM, the applicants, along with co-accused persons,
were travelling in an Innova car towards Abhanpur when they
were intercepted by the deceased Kailash Tiwari, Hemant, and
Jay @ Ajay Gond, who were riding an Activa scooter, over a
dispute regarding wrong-side driving. A violent scuffle ensued
between the parties. Subsequently, the applicants and the co-
accused boarded the car, and Dilesh Mandavi, who was driving
the vehicle, dashed it against Kailash Tiwari, who sustained
multiple injuries resulting in his death. The applicants then fled
the scene. Thereafter, the police registered the afore-stated

3
offence against the accused persons and arrested the applicants
on 17.01.2026.
3) Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicants submits that
a scuffle had ensued between the parties, leading to the lodging
of cross-FIRs, as applicant Chandan Yadav sustained severe
knife injuries at the hands of the complainant party. She further
submits that the fatal vehicle collision was purely accidental,
occurring while the accused persons were attempting to flee in
self-defence from a violent attack. She also submits that the
applicants have no criminal antecedents, the charge-sheet has
already been filed, and they have been in custody since
17.01.2026. Since the conclusion of the trial is likely to take
considerable time, she prays that the applicants be enlarged on
regular bail.
4) On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail
application and submits that there is a direct allegation against
the applicants to the effect that following a violent altercation, in
furtherance of their common intention, they drove the car over
Kailash Tiwari, who sustained grievous injuries and subsequently
succumbed to them. He further submits that there are two
eyewitnesses, namely Hemant and Jay @ Ajay Gond, who
witnessed the incident; therefore, the applicants are not entitled
to the grant of bail.

4
5) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
case diary.
6) Admittedly, the present applicants are named in the FIR and
specific allegations have been levelled against them that,
pursuant to a violent altercation and in furtherance of common
intention with the co-accused, they drove an Innova car over
Kailash Tiwari, which caused grievous cervical spine injuries
leading to his death. It is urged by the applicants that the collision
was neither deliberate nor premeditated, but an act committed in
the exercise of their right of private defence in the face of an
imminent threat to life and limb but the veracity of the allegations
made in the FIR cannot be examined in light of defense taken by
Ms. Mirza.
7) 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. In
the present case, although the incident occurred on 14.01.2026
and the FIR was lodged on 17.01.2026, there are specific
allegations that the deceased, Kailash Tiwari, sustained a cervical
spine injury after being mowed down by the car driven by the
applicants following a violent altercation, and succumbed to the
same.
8) In view of the aforesaid discussion, coupled with the fact that

5
there are two eyewitnesses, namely, Hemant and Jay @ Ajay
Gond, who witnessed the incident, the involvement of the
applicants in the commission of the alleged offence cannot be
ruled out at this stage.

9) Consequently, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the
applicants and the instant bail applications are rejected.
Sd/-
(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)
JUDGE
A j i n k y a