TUSHAR DHANDA vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

CGHC010403472026 2026:CGHC:45954
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No. 9692 of 2026
Tushar Dhanda S/o Rajkapur Dhanda Aged About 26 Years (Wrongly
Mentioned As Rajkumar In The Order Sheet), R/o Garud Nagar, Gewra,
Quarter No. B 38, Police Station Dipka, District Korba, C.G.
... Applicant(s)
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Urga, District Korba C.G.
... Non-Applicant(s)
For Applicant : Mr. Abhishek Sinha, Senior Advocate along
with Ms. Kanchan Kalwani, Advocate as
well as Mr. Jasleen K. Gulati, Advocate.
For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Ritika Verma, Panel Lawyer
Hon'ble Mr. Rakesh Mohan Pandey, Judge
Order on Board
30/10/2026
1. This is the First Bail Application filed by the applicant under Section
483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, who has
been arrested in connection with Crime No. 390/2026, registered at
Police Station Urga, District Korba (C.G.), for the offence
punishable under Section 103(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,
2023.
2. Prosecution story, in brief, is that on 04.07.2026, at about 4:40 AM,

2
the complainant Vikas Hudda lodged a report before the concerned
Police Station stating therein that on 03.07.2026, he was
celebrating his birthday at Meera Resort, where the applicant, after
consuming liquor, broke some glasses, which led to an altercation
between the applicant and the friends present at the party. It is
further alleged that at about 11:00 PM, after the party, the applicant
dashed his vehicle against the vehicle of Aman Singh and while
reversing his car, intentionally hit and ran over his car upon Ujjwal
Kumar with the intention to kill him. As a result, Ujjwal Kumar
sustained serious injuries and was immediately taken to Shivam
Hospital, Korba, where, during the course of treatment, he
succumbed to his injuries. On such complaint, the aforesaid offence
was registered against the applicant.
3. Learned senior counsel appearing for the applicant would argue
that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the
present case. He would further submit that although there is an
allegation that the deceased was run over by the car driven by the
applicant but no crush injury has been found on the body of the
deceased. On the contrary, the deceased had sustained abrasions
and an abraded contusion, which, according to learned counsel,
creates doubt regarding the prosecution story. He would contend
that the applicant had no intention or knowledge to cause the death
of the deceased and that the entire prosecution story is concocted.
Learned senior counsel would further submit that the charge-sheet
has already been filed before the competent Court and therefore, no
further custodial interrogation of the applicant is required. The

3
applicant is a young person aged about 26 years and has been in
jail since 05.07.2026 and he has no criminal antecedents. He would
also submit that, as per the query report, there is no conclusive
opinion to establish that the body of the deceased was run over by a
car. He would further refer to the statement of Jyoti Mishra,
recorded during the course of investigation and submit that the
applicant was surrounded by the deceased and other persons
present at the spot. According to the applicant, after his vehicle
dashed against Aman Singh, the other persons present at the spot
started approaching him with the intention of assaulting him. In the
said commotion, the applicant inadvertently hit the deceased
Ujjawal Kumar with his vehicle. Thereafter, apprehending an
assault at the hands of the persons present there, the applicant fled
from the spot in his car in order to save himself. Thus, learned
senior counsel would submit that the incident occurred without any
intention or knowledge on the part of the applicant to cause the
death of the deceased and that the applicant has been falsely
implicated in the present case. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail
to the applicant.
4. On the other hand, learned State counsel appearing for the State
would oppose the prayer for grant of bail and submit that there are
eyewitnesses account who have categorically stated that a dispute
had taken place between the applicant and the deceased and other
persons present at the spot. She would further submit that, with the
intention to cause bodily injury and commit murder of the deceased,
the applicant started his car, reversed it and thereafter, at a high

4
speed, ran over the body of the deceased, resulting in serious
injuries, to which the deceased subsequently succumbed during the
course of treatment. She would further submit that the
eyewitnesses, namely, Krishna Pratap Singh, Yashwant Singh,
Gautam Singh, Abhishek Kumar Singh and Sagar Singh, have
categorically stated in their respective statements that the applicant
intentionally reversed his vehicle and ran it over the body of the
deceased. She would further draw the attention of the Court to the
post-mortem report, which reveals that the deceased had sustained
as many as nine injuries over various parts of his body, as follows:
(i) An abrasion wound measuring 6 cm x 2 cm over the right half of
the forehead. (ii) An abrasion with contusion measuring 6 cm x 2.5
cm over the left half of the forehead. (iii) An abrasion wound
measuring 6 cm x 2 cm over the posterolateral aspect of the left
shoulder. (iv) A grazed abrasion measuring 32 cm x 6 cm over the
posterolateral aspect of the left arm, forearm and back of the left
hand (v) A grazed abrasion measuring 15 cm x 8 cm over the
anterolateral aspect of the left half of the lower one-third of the
abdomen. (vi) Two abrasion wounds measuring 2 cm x 2 cm and 5
cm x 2.5 cm, respectively, over the anterolateral aspect of the left
knee. (vii) An abrasion wound measuring 2 cm x 2 cm over the
lateral aspect of the right knee. (viii) One Y-shaped abraded
contusion over the medial aspect of the lower one-third of the right
leg, just above the medial malleolus and (ix) An abraded contusion
measuring 2 cm x 1.8 cm, associated with loss of hair and
underlying diffuse scalp swelling.

5
5. She would further submit that, as per the post-mortem report, the
cause of death was cerebral haemorrhage and its consequences
due to head injury resulting from blunt force trauma over the head.
The injuries were antemortem in nature and the nature of the
weapon used was opined to be hard and blunt force/trauma/surface
impact. Thus, the medical evidence lends support to the
prosecution case regarding the serious injuries sustained by the
deceased. Learned State counsel would contend that the
submissions made on behalf of the applicant with regard to the
absence of crush injuries and the query report cannot, at this stage,
outweigh the specific and categorical statements of the
eyewitnesses implicating the applicant in the commission of the
offence. Therefore, she prays for dismissal of the bail application.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case
diary.
7. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, nature
and gravity of the offence alleged against the applicant, particularly
the nature and number of injuries sustained by the deceased and
the manner in which the alleged incident took place, this Court is not
inclined to grant bail to the applicant at this stage. The post-mortem
report reveals that the deceased had sustained as many as nine
injuries over different parts of his body, including injuries over the
forehead, shoulder, left arm, forearm, abdomen and both knees.
Significantly, an abraded contusion associated with loss of hair and
underlying diffuse scalp swelling was also found over the head of

6
the deceased. The post-mortem report further opines that the cause
of death was cerebral haemorrhage and its consequences due to
head injury resulting from blunt force trauma over the head and that
the injuries were antemortem in nature. Further, the statements of
the alleged eyewitnesses, namely, Krishna Pratap Singh, Yashwant
Singh, Gautam Singh, Abhishek Kumar Singh and Sagar Singh,
prima facie indicate that, after the altercation, the applicant
reversed his vehicle at a high speed and ran it over the body of the
deceased. Their statements attribute a specific role to the applicant
in the commission of the alleged offence. The deceased thereafter
sustained serious injuries and ultimately succumbed to them during
the course of treatment.
8. The contention of learned senior counsel for the applicant that no
crush injury was found on the body of the deceased and that the
query report does not conclusively establish that the deceased was
run over by a car, cannot, at this stage, be considered in isolation so
as to discard the ocular evidence available on record. The medical
evidence, particularly the head injury and the opinion regarding the
cause of death, has to be considered along with the statements of
the eyewitnesses and the other material collected during
investigation. Similarly, the defence version that the applicant had
fled from the spot to save himself, raises questions which would
require proper appreciation of the evidence during trial.
9. Having regard to the specific allegations against the applicant, the
nature of the injuries sustained by the deceased, the medical

7
evidence indicating death due to head injury and the statements of
the eyewitnesses attributing the act to the applicant, this Court is of
the considered view that no case for grant of bail is made out at this
stage.
10. Accordingly, the bail application filed by the applicant is rejected .
- S/- Sd/-
(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)
Judge
Kunal