[Cites 14, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Jayant Biswas vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 8 April, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
Digitally signed
by ALOK
2026:CGHC:15968-DB
SHARMA
ALOK
NAFR
Date:
SHARMA 2026.04.09
19:13:56
+0530
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 510 of 2026
1 - Jayant Biswas S/o Jagdish Biswas Aged About 32 Years Resident -
P.V.-82, Vijaynagar Thana- Pankhajur Kanker District- U.B. Kanker
(Chhattisgarh)
... Appellant(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Police Station Pankhajur District-
U.B.Kanker (Chhattisgarh)
... Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Krishna Kumar Khatri, Advocate.
For Respondent/State : Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer.
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge
Order on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
08/04/2026
1. Heard Mr. Krishna Kumar Khatri, learned counsel for the appellant
as well as Mr. Shailendra Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer,
appearing for the Respondent/State.
2. This criminal appeal under Section 21(4) of the National
Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (for short, 'NIA Act') is directed
against the impugned order dated 05.06.2025 passed by the
Special Judge (N.I.A.)/First Additional Sessions Judge, North
Bastar, Kanker, District Kanker (Chhattisgarh), whereby the Bail
Application No. 88/2025, filed under Section 439/483 of BNSS,
2023 in connection with Crime No. 04/2024 registered at Police
Station Pankhajur, District Kanker, under Sections 120(B), 302/34
(mentioned as 302/149 in bail rejection order of the learned
Special Judge), 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Sections
25(1)(b)(i) and 27(3) of the Arms Act.
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 07.01.2024 the
complainant, Dipankar Ray, reported at Police Station Pankhajur
that at about 08:00 PM his elder brother, Asim Ray, had been shot
by unknown persons and was taken to Civil Hospital, Pankhajur
for treatment, where the doctor declared him dead. On the basis
of this report, Marg No. 02/2024 was registered and thereafter
Crime No. 04/2024 was registered against unknown persons
under Sections 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and
investigation was commenced. During investigation, CCTV
footage from the place of occurrence showed the shooter talking
to a journalist, Mithun Mandal, who upon being questioned
disclosed the name of one accused, Vikas Talukdar. The
investigation further revealed that there was a political rivalry
among Bappa Ganguly, Babu Halder and the deceased Asim Ray
regarding dominance in the Paralkot area. It was alleged that due
to this rivalry, Bappa Ganguly, Vikas Pal, Babu Halder and
Jitendra Bairagi conspired to eliminate Asim Ray and engaged
shooters through intermediaries after conducting reconnaissance
of the deceased. It is alleged that a contract of Rs. 7,00,000 was
given to shooter Vikas Talukdar along with his associates Gopi
Das and Jayant Biswas, who on 07.01.2024 shot the deceased
from behind on the head at Old Bazaar Main Road, Pankhajur,
causing his death, and that Sonu Sahu supplied the firearm used
in the offence. After completion of investigation, a charge-sheet
was filed against several accused persons including Nilratan
Mandal, Somen Mandal, Jayant Biswas, Gopi Das, Bappa
Ganguly, Vikas Pal, Jitendra Bairagi, Ripon Sadiyal, Surjit Bala,
Samit Majhi, Tapan Mandal, Vikas Talukdar, Sonu Sahu and
Pradeep Halder, indicating prima facie involvement in the offence.
4. The appellant has preferred an application under Section 483 of
the BNSS before the Special Judge (NIA), North Bastar, Kanker,
District Kanker, which was rejected by the impugned order dated
05.06.2025, against which, this criminal appeal has been filed by
the appellant.
5. Mr. Krishna Kumar Khatri, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant, has vehemently argued that the appellant is innocent
and has been falsely implicated in the present case by the
prosecution while concealing the true facts. The appellant has
been in judicial custody since 11.01.2024 and the charge-sheet
has already been filed; however, the trial is still pending and is
likely to take considerable time for its conclusion. The appellant
has no criminal antecedents and this is his first alleged offence. It
is further submitted that from the material collected by the
prosecution and the charge-sheet filed, there is neither any
eyewitness nor any reliable circumstantial evidence to show the
direct involvement of the appellant in the alleged offences under
Sections 120-B, 302/34, 201 of the Indian Penal Code and
Sections 25(1-B)(a) and 27(3) of the Arms Act. The case is triable
by the Sessions Court and the continued detention of the
appellant would serve no useful purpose. The appellant is a
permanent resident and possesses movable and immovable
properties; therefore, there is no likelihood of his absconding.
6. It has been further contended that other co-accused persons,
namely Pradeep @ Babu Haldar in MCRC No. 4056 of 2025,
Nilratan Mandal in MCRC No. 4107 of 2025, and Jitendra Bairagi
in MCRC No. 4372 of 2025 (all decided on 18.06.2025), Samit
Manjhi and Tapan Mandal in MCRC No. 3063 of 2025 (decided on
09.05.2025), and Gopi Das in MCRC No. 9007 of 2025 (decided
on 11.11.2025) have been granted bail by this Court. As such, the
present case is similar to the cases of the aforesaid co-accused
persons. He further submits that there are as many as 100 listed
witnesses, out of which only 10 witnesses have been examined
before the trial Court. The appellant has been in jail since
11.01.2024 and the trial of the case will take its own time;
therefore, he may be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity.
7. On the other hand, Mr. Shailendra Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer,
appearing for the NIA/respondent vehemently opposed the prayer
for grant of bail and submitted that the present appeal filed under
Section 21(4) of the N.I.A. Act against the order dated 05.06.2025
passed by the learned Special Judge, NIA, North Bastar Kanker,
in Special Session Case No. 50/2024, rejecting the appellant's
application under Section 439 Cr.P.C., is devoid of merit and
deserves to be dismissed. It is submitted that the impugned order
is well-reasoned and has been passed after due consideration of
the material available on record. During investigation, substantial
evidence has been collected which prima facie establishes the
involvement of the appellant and other co-accused in a criminal
conspiracy to commit the murder of the deceased Asim Rai. The
investigation revealed that due to political rivalry and supremacy
in the Paralkot area, the accused persons hatched a well-planned
conspiracy and arranged shooters by paying a contract amount of
Rs. 7,00,000, pursuant to which the deceased was shot dead on
07.01.2024 at Purana Bazar, Pakhanjur. The prosecution has
collected various pieces of evidence including CCTV footage,
witness statements recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., call detail
records, forensic and post-mortem reports, seizure memos, and
other documentary material, which clearly connect the accused
persons with the commission of the offence. After completion of
investigation, charge-sheet has been filed against fourteen
accused persons and the trial is presently pending before the
competent Court. Considering the gravity and seriousness of the
offence, the manner in which the crime was committed pursuant
to a criminal conspiracy, and the material available on record, it is
submitted that no ground for grant of bail is made out. Hence, the
present appeal is liable to be dismissed.
8. We have heard the learned appearing for the parties, considered
their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through
the records with utmost circumspection.
9. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the
parties and perused the material available on record, the
appellant is in judicial custody since 11.01.2024 in connection with
Crime No. 04/2024 registered at Police Station Pakhanjur, District
North Bastar Kanker for the offences punishable under Sections
120-B, 302/34, 201 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 25(1-
B)(a) and 27(3) of the Arms Act. The charge-sheet has already
been filed and the trial is presently pending, wherein out of about
100 listed witnesses only 10 witnesses have been examined so
far and, therefore, the trial is likely to take considerable time for its
conclusion. It is also not in dispute that several co-accused
persons, namely Pradeep @ Babu Haldar, Nilratan Mandal,
Jitendra Bairagi, Samit Manjhi, Tapan Mandal and Gopi Das have
already been granted bail by this Court. Considering the period of
custody of the appellant, the stage of the trial, the fact that the
charge-sheet has been filed, and particularly the principle of parity
with the co-accused who have been enlarged on bail, and further
considering that the appellant is in jail since 11.01.2024 and final
adjudication of the case will take its own time, therefore, without
commenting anything on merits of the case, the impugned order
rejecting the bail application of the appellant dated 05.06.2025 is
hereby set aside and the appeal is allowed.
10. Let the appellant- Jayant Biswas involved in Crime No.04/2024
registered at Police Station Pankhajur, District Kanker, under
Sections 120(B), 302/34 (mentioned as 302/149 in bail rejection
order of the learned Special Judge), 201 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860, and Sections 25(1)(b)(i) and 27(3) of the Arms Act,
shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the
sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- with two sureties (one should be family
member) in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned trial
Court, on following conditions:-
(i) He 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 from disclosing such
fact to the Court;
(ii) He shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial
to fair and expeditious trial;
(iii) He shall appear before the trial Court on each and
every date given to him by the said Court till disposal of
the trial; and,
(iv) He shall not involve himself in any offence of similar
nature in future.
11. The trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the
same expeditiously preferably within a period of six months from
the date of production of certified copy of this order and the
appellant shall cooperate in the expeditious disposal of the trial
and if he fails to appear or take unnecessary adjournment, the
trial Court will be at liberty to cancel his bail bonds and take him in
custody.
12. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial
Court for necessary information and compliance forthwith.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Alok
