Pawan Yadav vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 9 June, 2025

Chattisgarh High Court

Pawan Yadav vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 9 June, 2025

                                           1


                               Digitally signed by
                               SHUBHAM SINGH
                               RAGHUVANSHI
                               Date: 2025.06.10
                               12:37:22 +0530



                                                         2025:CGHC:22590


                                                                           NAFR

               HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR



                            MCRC No. 3546 of 2025


Pawan Yadav S/o Raghunath Yadav Aged About 27 Years Caste Ahir, R/o
Village Khairapath, Police Chowki Pandrapath, P.S. Bagicha, District Jashpur
(C.G.)
                                                                 ... Applicant


                                       versus


State of Chhattisgarh Police of Police Chowki Pandrapath, P.S. Bagicha,
District Jashpur (C.G.)
                                                               ... Respondent(s)

For Applicant                   :         Mr. J. K. Gupta, Advocate
For Respondent(s)               :         Ms. Sunita Manikpuri, Dy. G.A.



                  Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal
                                    Order On Board
09/06/2025

1. The applicant has preferred this 2nd bail application under Section 483
of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita Act 2023 for grant of regular bail
as he is arrested in connection with crime No. 14/2023, registered at
Police Station – Bagicha, District- Jashpur (C.G.) for offence
punishable under Sections 302, 201, 203 & 34 of the IPC.

2

2. First bail application of the applicant was rejected on merits vide order
dated 13.09.2023 passed in MCRC no.4868/2023.

3. As per prosecution story, complainant Sandeep Yadav lodged an oral
report on 10.02.2023 stating therein that the applicant who is a nephew
of deceased Pramila Yadav was going to Sankargarh along with
Pramila by Alto Car and when they were reached near Kamariya
Valley/Ghat, the driver/applicant of the vehicle drove the car in rash and
negligent manner due to which the incident took place resulted which
the deceased died on the spot. When the police investigated the case
on the basis of the complaint, it was found that the death of the
deceased was homicidal in nature. The police has investigated the
matter wherein it was found that it was a planned murder and the
husband of the deceased (co-accused Arjun), the present applicant
and another co-accused person namely Alok are involved in the
present case. Based on this, offence has been registered against the
present applicant.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent
and has been falsely implicated in the crime in question. He would
further submit that out of 30 witnesses, only 10 have been examined till
date and except interested witnesses, all of them have been turned
hostile. Only on the basis of memorandum statement of co-accused
Arjun Yadav, the applicant has been implicated in the crime in question.
He further submits that except a mobile phone, nothing has been
seized from the present applicant. The applicant is jail since
25.02.2023 and the trial is likely to some time to be finalized, therefore,
it is prayed that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

5. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes
the bail application and submits that a seizure of mobile phone has
been made from the present applicant. She further submits that from
the memorandum statement of co-accused Arjun Yadav who is a
husband of the deceased Pramila, establishes the involvement of the
applicant in the crime in question. Hence, the bail application may be
rejected.

3

6. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused
the material available on record.

7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, evidence
collected by the prosecution, particularly considering that except one
mobile phone, nothing has been seized from the present applicant.
According to the State Counsel, except seizure and memorandum
statement of Arjun Yadav, no evidence available on record against the
applicant herein. The applicant is in jail since 25.02.2023 i.e. about 2
years 4 months and 20 prosecution witnesses remain to be examined,
the trial may likely to take some time to be finalized, therefore, in view
of above, without further commenting on other merits of the case, at
this stage, I am inclined to release the applicant on bail.

8. Accordingly, the bail application is Allowed.

9. It is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail on executing a
personal bond for a sum of Rs. 20,000/- with one solvent surety for the
like sum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for his appearance before
the said Court as and when directed.

10. The Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial as early as possible.

Sd/-

(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal)
Judge

Shubham