Chhattisgarh HC Denies Bail To Woman Accused With Husband Of Killing Man Found In Trunk; CCTV Shows Her Loading It

In brief

The question

Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail, having regard to the alleged evidence of her participation and the gravity of the offence.

The court held

The Court answered the bail question against the applicant, held that parity did not apply, and rejected the first bail application under Section 483 BNSS.

01Facts

The applicant sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with Crime No. 255/2025, registered for offences under Sections 103(1), 238(A), 61(2)(A) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

¶ 1

The prosecution alleged that the applicant and others were involved in the murder of Kishore Paikra and the disposal of his body in a trunk.

¶ 2

CCTV footage allegedly showed the applicant and others loading the trunk into a car; a scooty and mobile phone were seized from the applicant, and the trunk was allegedly purchased using her phone through UPI.

¶ 2, 6

The applicant relied on parity with two co-accused who had been granted bail, the progress of the trial, the fact that several witnesses had not supported the prosecution, and her lack of criminal antecedents.

¶ 3, 7, 9

The State opposed bail, contending that the applicant’s alleged role in the murder distinguished her from the co-accused.

¶ 4

02Issues

i.Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail, having regard to the alleged evidence of her participation and the gravity of the offence.

¶ 6–10

ii.Whether the applicant was entitled to bail on parity with co-accused who had been released on bail.

¶ 7

iii.Whether the progress of the trial and the applicant’s challenge to the prosecution evidence supported granting bail.

¶ 9

03Law Applied

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, provides the basis for the High Court’s consideration of an application for regular bail.

¶ 1

At the bail stage, the Court’s inquiry is limited to assessing whether a prima facie case exists; the credibility and reliability of witnesses are not finally determined at that stage.

¶ 8–9

The Court also considered parity in light of the respective roles attributed to the applicant and the bailed co-accused, alongside the nature and gravity of the alleged offence.

¶ 7, 10

Provisions in the judgment · 5 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 483

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 103 Section 238 Section 61 Section 3

04Reasoning

The Court found that the alleged UPI purchase of the trunk using the applicant’s mobile phone, together with CCTV footage showing her among those loading the trunk into a car, provided a prima facie link to the offence and made her active participation impossible to rule out.

¶ 6, 8

It rejected parity because the bailed co-accused were alleged only to have disposed of the body and screened the offence, while the applicant and her husband were attributed a role in the murder.

¶ 7

The Court declined to assess the prosecution witnesses’ credibility at the bail stage and considered that the applicant could advance her defence at trial.

¶ 9

In view of the alleged role and gravity of the offence, it was not inclined to grant bail.

¶ 10

05Holding

The Court answered the bail question against the applicant, held that parity did not apply, and rejected the first bail application under Section 483 BNSS.

¶ 7, 10–11

LawLens.Chhattisgarh High Court

Original Court PDF