Chhattisgarh HC Grants Bail To Two Murder-Case Accused, Noting No Allegation They Took Part In The Killing

The applicants sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in Crime No. 134/2026, registered for offences under Sections 103, 191(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act.

The prosecution alleged that the deceased was attacked with sharp-edged weapons following prior enmity; the allegation of inflicting the fatal injuries was principally attributed to co-accused Karan @ Batha.

The applicants claimed they had not participated in the murder and were merely present at the scene. They relied on the filing of the charge-sheet, their period of custody from 17 February 2026, and the grant of bail to co-accused Shubham Dewangan @ Raja, who faced similar allegations.

The State opposed bail, citing the applicants’ alleged participation in the quarrel and their criminal antecedents.

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, empowers the High Court to grant regular bail.

In exercising that discretion, the Court considered the applicants’ alleged roles in the offence, the nature of their antecedents, the filing of the charge-sheet, the period of custody, and parity with a co-accused already released on bail.

The prosecution offences were registered under Sections 103, 191(2) and 3(5) of the BNS and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act.

The order cited no judicial precedent or further legal test.

The Court distinguished the applicants’ alleged conduct from that attributed to Karan @ Batha, against whom the fatal assault was alleged; it found no comparable allegation that the applicants participated in the murder.

Although the State relied on criminal antecedents, the Court noted that the offences registered against the applicants were bailable. It also took account of the filed charge-sheet, the applicants’ custody since 17 February 2026, and the bail granted to Shubham Dewangan @ Raja on similar allegations.

On these considerations, and without expressing an opinion on the merits, the Court found bail appropriate.

It directed that each applicant be released on a personal bond of ₹50,000 with one surety for the like sum, to the satisfaction of the trial Court, subject to conditions against influencing witnesses or prejudicing a fair and expeditious trial, and requiring appearance on every date fixed until the trial’s disposal.

The Court clarified that its observations were confined to the bail decision and would not affect the trial Court’s independent assessment of the case.