Chattisgarh High Court
Jalil Khan vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 17 June, 2025
1/4
2025:CGHC:25028
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No. 2654 of 2025
1. Jalil Khan S/o Maksoom Khan Aged About 37 Years R/o
Village Biranpur, Police Station And Tehsil- Saja, District
Bemetara, Chhattisgarh.
... Applicant (In jail)
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 (C.G.), (Added As Per Honble
Court Order Dated 23.04.2025)
... Non-applicant
For Applicant : Mr. Maneesh Sharma, Advocate
For Non-applicant No.1 : Mr. UKS Chandel, Dy. Advocate General
For Non-applicant No.2 : Mr. B. Gopa Kumar, Advocate
SB: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Parth Prateem Sahu
Order on Board
17.06.2025
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 147, 148, 149, 336, 307, 302, 120B of the
Indian Penal Code.
2/4
2. First bail application bearing M.Cr.C. No.4376/2024 was
dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 23.7.2024.
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
turn up in the meeting. When Bhumeshwar 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 8.4.2023 and since then he is in jail i.e. for last
more than two years. After filing of challan by the police, the
investigation of crime was handed over to the CBI vide
Notification dated 26.4.2024 and the CBI has now filed
supplementary charge sheet after completion of investigation
impleading six more co-accused persons. However, for the
3/4
reasons best known to the prosecution, newly arrayed accused
persons have yet not been arrested. Against one of newly
arrayed accused namely Jameer Khan, there is allegation of
assault by means of knife. As it is the case of assault upon
deceased and others by a group of persons including applicant
and some of the accused persons have not been arrested till
date, the applicant may be enlarged on bail.
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
recording in the 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 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 Court of CBI
vide order of this Court dated 12.3.2025 and is fixed on
20.6.2025. Even if other co-accused persons have not been
arrested, applicant cannot pray for negative parity. He also
contended that merely period of detention will not be sufficient
to seek bail in such a serious nature of offence of assaulting
and committing murder of one of the injured. In support of his
contention, he placed reliance upon the decision of Hon’ble
4/4
Supreme Court in case of Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav vs
CBI, reported in 2007 AIR SCR 753.
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. From the documents available in charge sheet, part of which is
filed along with reply filed on behalf of respondent No.2, it is
appearing that in the statement of witnesses recorded by the
Investigating Agency, there is prima facie allegation of
involvement of applicant in commission of crime in question.
Charges are under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 120B of IPC
along with the offence under Sections 336, 307 & 302 of IPC.
9. Considering the entirety of the facts of case and the material
collected by the Investigating Agency, forming part of the
charge sheet, I do not find present to be a fit case where
SYED applicant should be enlarged on bail. Accordingly, this second
ROSHAN
ZAMIR ALI bail application is rejected.
Digitally signed
by SYED Sd/-
ROSHAN
ZAMIR ALI (Parth Prateem Sahu)
Judge
roshan/-