[ad_1]
Chattisgarh High Court
Rajobai Baiga vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 3 July, 2025
1
2025:CGHC:31144
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No. 4575 of 2025
1 - Rajobai Baiga W/o Bhursa Baiga Aged About 50 Years R/o Sakni
Nagadbara Mathpur, Police Station Kukdur, District- Kabirdham (C.G.)
... Applicant(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Kukdur, District-
Kabirdham (C.G.)
... Respondent(s)
(Cause title taken from Case Information System)
For Applicant(s) : Mr. Anshul Tiwari, Advocate
For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Ajit Singh, Govt. Advocate
Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal
Order on Board
03/07/2025
1. This is the first bail application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 filed by the applicant, who is
arrested on 22.02.2024, in connection with Crime No. 21 of 2024,
registered at Police Station Kukdur, District Kabirdham (C.G.), for the
offence under Sections 302, 201, 120-B, 147, 148, 149, 436 of IPC.
2. The case of prosecution is that, on 15.01.2024, the Kotwar of the
village namely Akkal Singh informed the police that, at about 7:00
AM, he saw that smoke were coming out from the house of the
Digitally
signed by
VEDPRAKASH
VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN
DEWANGAN Date:
2025.07.08
18:08:51
+0530
2deceased Budhram Baiga, and when he went on the spot, he saw
that the entire house of the deceased Budhram Baiga was burnt and
Budhram Baiga, his wife Hirmani Bai and their son Jolhuram died
due to burn injuries. The police recorded merg intimation and started
inquiry. During the merg inquiry, the statement of the witnesses
Lalsingh, Shantibai and Kamlesh Shriwas were recorded, in which
they disclosed that on 14.01.2024, quarrel ensued between the
deceased persons and the accused party regarding crops of the field
and then in the same night, they saw that the accused persons
including the accused Santuram Baiga and Sukhsingh Baiga have
committed murder of the deceased persons by giving axe blow and
thereafter the house of the deceased persons started burning and
they identified the accused persons there. The police registered the
FIR and the accused persons have been arrested. During the
investigation, the dead bodies were sent for postmortem and the
cause of death of the deceased Budhram Baiga was opined that he
died due to antemortem burn injuries. With respect to cause of death
of deceased Hirmani Bai and Jolhuram, the doctor opined that cause
and manner of death cannot be ascertained properly due to bodies
being charred. After investigation, charge sheet was filed against the
accused persons including the present applicant.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that, the applicant is
innocent and has been falsely implicated in the offence. There is no
participation of the present applicant in the offence in question. She
only standing on the spot along with others and her presence on the
spot is quite natural, as she is a family member of accused persons.
3
There is no eyewitness to the incident that the present applicant has
burnt the house of the deceased persons or made any assault by any
weapon. He would further submit that the co-accused Budhwarin Bai
Baiga has been released on bail by this Court vide order dated
06.01.2025, passed in MCRC No. 8843 of 2024 and the case of the
present applicant is also similar to the case of Budhwarin Bai Baiga
and she is also entitled for the same relief.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State opposes
the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant and
submitted that there is statement of the witnesses, which clearly
shows that the applicant exhorted for commission of the offence. In
161 and 164 CRPC statements of Bhukluram Baiga, her involvement
in the offence in question is shown. From the 161 CRPC statement of
Kamlesh Shriwas, Santosh Baiga, Bhagwat, Jagatram Baiga,
Matwarin Bai, Rambai Baiga, Bhadlu Baiga, Siliya Bai, Samaro Bai
and other witnesses, the involvement of the present applicant is
prima facie there in the charge sheet. The allegation against the
present applicant as well as the co-accused Budhwarin Bai Baiga are
different and therefore the present applicant is not entitled for any
parity with Budhwarin Bai Baiga. The bail application of other co-
accused persons namely Akkal Baiga, Budhsingh Baiga, Miyaji and
Sukhram Baiga has been dismissed by this Court. Looking to the
seriousness of the offence and allegation against the present
applicant, she is not entitled for bail.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the
case diary.
4
6. Considering the submissions made by the parties, considering the
material collected during the investigation and the allegation against
the present applicant regarding her involvement in the offence in
question, her presence on the spot, allegation of exhorting and the
previous quarrel between the deceased and the present applicant
with respect to the possession of the land, there is sufficient prima
facie evidence, which makes her disentitle to be released on bail.
The allegation against the present applicant and the co-accused
Budhwarin Bai are also not similar and she is not entitled for any
parity with her. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the
case, and the evidence available against the present applicant in the
charge sheet, I am not inclined to release her on bail.
7. Accordingly, the bail application of present applicant Rajobai Baiga
is rejected.
Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal)
Judge
ved
[ad_2]
Source link