BAMAN KUNJAM @ DONDI vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

CGHC010342512026
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No. 8212 of 2026
Baman Kunjam @ Dondi S/o Late Mangu Kunjam Aged About 40 Years R/o
Village Kutrem, Sarpanchpara, P.S. Kirandul, District Dantewada (C.G.)
...Applicant
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station Kirandul, District
Dantewada (C.G.) ... Respondent

For Applicant : Mr. Pravin Kumar Tulsyan with Mr. Vikas Patel,
Advocate.
For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Govt. Advocate.

Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J.
Order on Board
03.09.2026
1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section
483 of B.N.S.S. for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in
connection with Crime No. 62/2025, registered at Police Station -
Kirandul, District Dantewada (C.G) for the offence punishable under
Sections 109(1) & 3(5) of the BNS.
2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 16.10.2025 at about
10:00 P.M., the complainant was sleeping in the porch of her house,

2
while her husband was sleeping in another nearby house/porch. It is
alleged that the victim came there and struck/slammed the door of the
complainant's house and fell down there, whereupon blood was
noticed coming from his throat. The complainant thereafter called the
neighbours for help, and the injured was taken to the hospital for
treatment. Subsequently, the complainant lodged a report against an
unknown person, on the basis of which the FIR was registered. During
the course of investigation, the present applicant was subsequently
alleged to be involved in the commission of the offence and was
arrested on 17.10.2025. After completion of investigation, the police
filed the charge-sheet before the competent Court. The applicant is
presently in judicial custody.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is
innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case and has
no direct involvement in the alleged offence. It is submitted that the
FIR was initially lodged against an unknown person and the name of
the applicant was not mentioned therein, and his subsequent
implication is required to be tested during trial. There is no eye-
witness who has specifically witnessed the applicant causing any
injury to the victim, nor has any weapon or other incriminating article
been seized or recovered from his possession. As per the prosecution
case itself, the alleged assault with an axe is attributed to co-accused
Bhima and no specific role has been attributed to the present
applicant in the alleged incident. The charge-sheet has already been
filed and, therefore, no further custodial interrogation of the applicant
is required. The applicant has been in judicial custody since

3
17.10.2025 and has already undergone about 10 months and 13 days
of incarceration as on 30.08.2026. Further, out of total 13 prosecution
witnesses cited in the charge-sheet, not a single prosecution witness
has yet been examined, and therefore, the trial is likely to take
considerable time to conclude. The applicant has no criminal
antecedents and there is no material on record to suggest that he is a
habitual offender or that he would misuse the liberty of bail; hence,
considering the period of incarceration and the facts and
circumstances of the case, the applicant deserves to be released on
regular bail.
4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel appearing for the On the
other hand, learned State counsel vehemently opposed the bail
application and submitted that the allegations against the applicant
are serious in nature. It is further submitted that the victim sustained a
grievous injury on his neck caused by a sharp-edged weapon and that
the involvement of the applicant subsequently surfaced during the
course of investigation. Therefore, considering the nature and gravity
of the allegations and the material available on record, the applicant is
not entitled to the grant of regular bail.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case
diary.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of the
allegations and the material available on record, it is observed that the
victim sustained a grievous injury on his neck caused by a sharp-
edged weapon, though the FIR was initially lodged against an
unknown person, the involvement of the present applicant

4
subsequently surfaced during the course of investigation. Considering
the nature of the injury and the allegations against the applicant, this
Court is not inclined to grant regular bail to the applicant. Accordingly,
the bail application is rejected.
7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant – Baman Kunjam @
Dondi, involved in Crime No. 62/2025, registered at Police Station -
Kirandul, District Dantewada (C.G) for the offence punishable under
Sections 109(1) & 3(5) of the BNS, is rejected.
Sd/-
(RavindraKumar Agrawal)
Judge
vaibhav