Chattisgarh High Court
Murli Yadav vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 25 August, 2025
1
2025:CGHC:43029
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CRA No. 1603 of 2025
Murli Yadav S/o Radhe Yadav Aged About 21 Years R/o Vrinda Nagar,
Borsi, Ward No. 551, Padmnabhpur, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh
... Appellant
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station-
Padmnabhpur, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh
---- Respondent
For Appellant : Mr. Prasoon Agrawal, Advocate
For State-Respondent : Ms. Upasana Mehta, Dy. GA
Digitally signed
by VASANT
VASANT KUMAR
Date:
KUMAR 2025.08.25
Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma
17:52:22
+0530
Order on Board
25/08/2025
1. This appeal under Section 14(A)(2) of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (hereinafter referred to
as “Special Act“) has been filed against the order dated 22.11.2024
passed by the Special Judge, Durg (CG) in connection with Crime No.
308/2024 registered at Police Station Padmnabhpur, District Durg
(CG) for the offence punishable under Sections 103(1), 3(5), 61(2),
2
191(1), 191 (2), 191(3) and 238 of BNS, 2023 Sections 25 and 27 of
the Arms Act and 3 (2)(v) and 3(1) of the SC/ST (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act 1989.
2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that on 13.08.2024, complainant
filed a written complaint before the police authorities alleging that on
12.08.2024, at about 11.10 pm his nephew namely Shubham Bande
was assaulted by Ravi Yadav and other co-accused persons with knife
and other incriminating articles near Government School Borsi Bhanta
as a result of which Shubham sustained grievous injuries on his
stomach, head and back. He was immediately taken to hospital where
the doctors declared him dead. FIR was lodged against Ravi Yadav by
name and others on 13.08.2024 under Section 103(1) and 3(5) of the
BNS 2023, Accused Ravi Yadav was arrested and on his memorandum
statement, co-accused persons namely Sahil Yadav, Ritendra Yadav,
Murali Yadav, Harish Mugari, Aman Bhatt, Dinesh Yadav, Om Prakash
Dewangan, Komesh Sahu, Vedprakash Sahu and the present appellant
were arrested.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the present
appellant has been arrested only on the basis of the statement of the co-
accused person. He would next contend that the name of the present
appellant is not mentioned in the FIR and they have not been named in
the 164 statement of the victim. There is no evidence to suggest that
the appellant took any part in the attack, either by inflicting harm on
3
the victims or by encouraging or assisting in the commission of the
crime. Lastly, he submits that the charge sheet has been filed, the
appellant is in jail since 14.08.2024 and the trial will take sometime to
conclude, therefore he would pray for grant of bail to the appellant.
4. Learned State counsel also submits that the FSL is negative and the
names of the appellant has not been mentioned in the FIR and the
statement given under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C…
5. Complainant appeared through video conferencing from the DLSA –
Durg (C.G.) and has raised objection.
6. Heard counsel for the parties and considering the fact that in the FIR
there is no mention of the name of the appellant in commission of the
offence. It is pertinent to mention that the statement of Vedram Bande,
complainant has been recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. in which the
name of the appellants is not mentioned in the commission of the
offence and only on the basis of memorandum statement of the main
accused Ravi Yadav, name of the appellant is mentioned. Further
considering the fact that the FSL report of the seized club and knife is
negative, therefore, looking to the involvement/role of the appellant in
committing the offence and looking to the entire facts and
circumstances of the case, particularly the fact that the charge sheet has
been filed before the trial court on 14.08.2024 and there is no need of
custodial interrogation and there is no previous antecedents shown by
the prosecution and also that the prosecution has not shown the
4
appellant trying to tamper the witnesses, therefore this Court is of the
considered opinion that present is a fit case to grant bail to the
appellant. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.
7. It is directed that in the event of the each of the appellant executing a
personal bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety in the like sum
to the satisfaction of the trial court, they shall be released on bail
subject to the following conditions:
i) That the appellant shall furnish a specific undertaking that
while on bail, he shall not commit any such offence, otherwise
bail granted to him shall be liable to be cancelled and shall co-
operate the prosecution during trial.
ii) That the accused/appellant shall not, directly or indirectly
make any inducement, threat or promise to any person
acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her
from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer.
iii) That the accused/appellant shall not act, in any manner,
which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial.
Sd/-
(Arvind Kumar Verma)
Judge
Vasant