Chattisgarh High Court
Dilesh Jangde vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 6 August, 2025
Author: Parth Prateem Sahu
Bench: Parth Prateem Sahu
1
2025:CGHC:39124
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No. 6169 of 2025
Dilesh Jangde S/o Khilavan Jangade Aged About 28 Years R/o Village
Semariya, Police Station - Bhatapara Gramin District Balodabazar-Bhatapara
Chhattisgarh Present R/o Ward No. 6, Bhursuda, Police Station - Tilda
Neora, District Raipur Chhattisgarh (Name Of The Applicant Is Wrongly
Mention In Rejection Order Dated 03-07-2025)
--- Applicant
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station - Tilda Neora, District - Raipur
Chhattisgarh
... Respondent
For Applicant : Mr. Ghanshyam Kashyap, Advocates
For Respondent-State : Mr. Ajit Singh, Govt. Advocate with Mr.
Triveni Shankar Sahu, P.L.
Hon’ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge
ORDER ON BOARD
06/08/2025
1. Applicant has filed this first bail application under Section 483 of
Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail as he
BALRAM
PRASAD
DEWANGAN has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 268/2023 registered at
Digitally signed by
BALRAM PRASAD
DEWANGAN
Date: 2025.08.07
Police Station – Tilda Neora, District – Raipur (C.G.) for offence
15:43:33 +0530
punishable under Sections 302, 120-B, 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
2
2. Case of prosecution in brief is that on 09.07.2023 a dead body was
found in Pandari pond of village Bhursuda. This came to knowledge of
villagers and also to wife of deceased Ramavatar, upon which, she
went to the pond and found that dead body was of her husband.
Morgue was reported to the concerned police station, based upon
which, crime was registered. During investigation based on the
statement of wife of deceased namely Dukalhin and applicant along
with other co-accused were arrested.
3. Learned counsel for applicant submits that co-accused Kapil Kumar
Gendle was enlarged on bail in M.Cr.C. No.4890 of 2025 vide order
dated 25.06.2025. The allegation against the applicant is almost same
as against co-accused Kapil Kumar Gendle. While considering the bail
application filed by co-accused Kapil Kumar Gendle, this Court
considered that almost all the material witnesses have been examined
before the trial Court, they have not supported the case of the
prosecution except Dukalhin Bai, widow of deceased, who is yet to be
examined. He also contended that as per report of the police officials,
who went to serve the warrant upon Dukalhin Bai reported that witness
Dukalhin Bai is suffering with some mental ailment and considering that
fact, granted bail to co-accused. Case of the applicant is also on similar
footing, therefore, he may also be enlarged on bail.
4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the submission
made by learned counsel for the applicant, however, he do not dispute
the submission of learned counsel for the applicant that this Court
enlarged co-accused Kapil Kumar Gendle on bail considering that only
3
material witness Dukalhin Bai remaining to be examined is not mentally
fit as per report.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
documents placed on record.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of
allegation, submission of learned counsel for respective parties and
pretrial detention of applicant since 10.07.2023, without commenting
anything on merits of the case, I am inclined to allow this application.
7. Accordingly, bail application is allowed. It is directed that the applicant
shall be released on regular bail, upon furnishing a bail bond in the sum
of ₹ 25,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the
Court on the conditions that-
(a) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that
she shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for
evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case
of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court
to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in
accordance with law.
(b) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court
on each date fixed, either personally or through him
counsel. In case of her absence, without sufficient cause,
the trial court may proceed against her under Section 269
of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
(c) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during
trial and in order to secure her presence, proclamation
under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicant fails
to appear before the court on the date fixed in such
proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings
against her, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of
the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
4
(d) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the
trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii)
framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under
Section 351 of BNSS. If in the opinion of the trial court
absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient
cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such
default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against her in
accordance with law.
8. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court
concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith.
Sd/-
(Parth Prateem Sahu)
JUDGE
Balram