Nijamuddin Khan vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 7 July, 2025

Chattisgarh High Court

Nijamuddin Khan vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 7 July, 2025

                                         1




                                                       2025:CGHC:30809
                                                                  NAFR

             HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR


                           MCRC No. 4813 of 2025

1 - Nijamuddin Khan S/o Karamuddin Khan Aged About 59 Years R/o Village
Shaktighat Biranpur, Police Station Saja, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh.
                                                             --- Applicant
                                    versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Saja,
District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh.


2 - Central Bureau Of Investigation Through Its Superintendent Of Police
Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
                                                      ... Non-applicant
For Applicant              : Mr. Veer Verma, Advocate
For Non-applicant No.1     : Mr. UKS Chandel, Dy. Advocate General
For Non-applicant No.2     : Mr. B. Gopa Kumar, Advocate appeared
                             through V.C. along with Mr. Himanshu
                             Pandey, Advocate

               SB: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Parth Prateem Sahu
                               Order on Board
07.07.2025

   1. This is second bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya

      Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (henceforth 'the BNSS') for grant of

      regular bail to applicant, who is in custody in connection with Crime

      No.87/2023 registered at Police Station Saja, District Bemetara (CG)

      for the offence punishable under Sections 120-B, , , ,

      /, / of the Indian Penal Code.
                                    2

2. First bail application bearing M.Cr.C. No.1096/2024 was dismissed as

   withdrawn vide order dated 26.2.2024.

3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 8.4.2023, four school going

   boys of Sahu community were intercepted and assaulted by the boys

   of other community. A meeting was organized to intervene and for that

   purpose the boys of other community residing in the village were also

   called but they did not turn up in the meeting. When Bhuneshwar

   Sahu along with his friends Bhagirathi Sahu and Rajaram Sahu were

   going to other vicinity of the village to call members of other

   community, the stones were pelted at them from the houses as a result

   Bhuneshwar Sahu sustained injuries, fell down and thereafter accused

   persons including present applicant dragged Bhuneshwar Sahu and

   assaulted him by means of sharp edged weapon also, as a result he

   died. Incident was reported in concerned police station based upon

   which instant crime was registered and during course of investigation,

   applicant was arrested.

4. Learned counsel for applicant would submit that applicant was

   arrested on 9.4.2023 and since then he is in jail i.e. for last more than

   two years. Trial till date has not commenced and conclusion of trial

   may take some time.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2

opposing the bail application, would submit that nature of offence

committed by applicant is serious one. In the statement of witnesses

namely Bhekhlal Thakur, Premlal Sahu, Rajaram Sahu, Bhagirathi

Sahu, Gocharan Sahu recorded during course of investigation, there is

direct allegation against applicant regarding his involvement in

commission of crime in question along with others. Delay in start of
3

trial is on the ground that after handing over of investigation to the CBI,

supplementary charge sheet was filed and now the case has been

transferred to the CBI Court vide order of this Court dated 12.3.2025

and is fixed on 20.6.2025. He also contended that merely period of

detention will not be sufficient ground to grant bail in such a serious

nature of offence of assaulting and committing murder of one and

injuries to others. In support of his contention, he placed reliance upon

the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Rajesh Ranjan @

Pappu Yadav vs CBI, reported in 2007 AIR SCR 753. He further

submits that the bail application of co-accused Jalil Khan, based on

similar allegations, has already been rejected by this Hon’ble Court

vide order dated 17.06.2025 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 2654 of 2025.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.

7. This is an application seeking bail by the applicant under the provision

of Section 483 of the BNSS, therefore, this Court is confined only to

consider whether applicant is entitled for bail or not.

8. On due consideration of the submission of the learned counsel for the

parties, the fact that application of similarly placed co-accused was

rejected, I do not find present to be a fit case to allow this application

and enlarge the applicant on bail.

9. Accordingly, this second bail application is rejected.

Sd/-

(Parth Prateem Sahu)
Judge

Balram