[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Pursottam Khunte vs The State Of Chhattisgarh on 27 March, 2026
1
2026:CGHC:14507
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No. 2857 of 2026
Pursottam Khunte S/o Balbhadra Khunte Aged About 28 Years
R/o Kurma Ps Baloda District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.)
... Applicant(s)
versus
The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Sho Ps Baloda District-
Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ---Non-Applicant
For Applicants : Mr. F.S. Khare, Advocate
For-Non-applicant : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, G.A.
Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge
Order on Board
27/03/2026
1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under
Section 483 of B.N.S.S. in connection with Crime No. 333/2025,
registered at Police Station Baloda, District Janjgir Champa,
Chhattisgarh for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201,
120(B) and 34 of IPC.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the accused, during the period from
06.11.2020 to 08.11.2020, between 19:00 hours and 13:00 hours,
Digitally
signed by
JYOTI JHA
at the place situated between Bichhalwa Nala and Chhata Jungle
Date:
2026.03.27
14:48:57
+0530
2
in Village Beltukri, within the jurisdiction of Police Station Baloda,
District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.), in furtherance of their common
intention along with other co-accused persons, conspired to
commit the murder of the deceased, Bhukhal Rohidas. In
pursuance of the said common intention, at the aforesaid place,
which is a public place or in the vicinity of a public place, the
accused persons administered poison to the deceased Bhukhal
Rohidas and thereafter set him on fire, thereby committing his
murder. Further, with the intention of screening themselves from
legal punishment, the accused, along with other co-accused
persons, in furtherance of their common intention, poured petrol on
the dead body of the deceased and set it ablaze, thereby causing
disappearance of evidence. Thus, the accused, in agreement with
other co-accused persons, conspired to commit the murder of the
deceased Bhukhal Rohidas and, in pursuance of such agreement,
committed the said offence.
3. Contention of the counsel for the applicant is that learned counsel
for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has
been falsely implicated in the present case, which is based entirely
on circumstantial evidence with an incomplete and inconclusive
chain of circumstances. It is further submitted that the independent
memorandum and seizure witness (PW-1) has not supported the
prosecution case, thereby vitiating the alleged recoveries under
Section 27 of the Evidence Act, and even the identification of the
deceased is doubtful in view of the admissions made by PW-2.
Learned counsel contends that there is an unexplained delay of
3
nearly five years in arresting the applicant, as the incident is
alleged to have occurred in 2020 while the applicant was arrested
only on 23.08.2025, which casts serious doubt on the prosecution
story. It is also argued that key prosecution witnesses have either
turned hostile or made contradictory statements, thereby reducing
the likelihood of conviction. The applicant has been in judicial
custody since 23.08.2025, the charge-sheet has already been
filed, and the trial is likely to take considerable time. Hence, it is
prayed that the applicant be enlarged on bail.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent/State, on the other hand, has
opposed the bail application. It is contended that there is sufficient
material available on record to establish the involvement of the
applicant, and the prosecution case cannot be discarded at this
stage merely on the basis of alleged contradictions or hostility of
some witnesses. Learned counsel further submits that the offence
is serious in nature, punishable with severe penalty, therefore, it is
prayed that the bail application deserves to be rejected.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case
diary.
6. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the
parties and upon perusal of the case diary, this Court finds that the
present case rests on circumstantial evidence. The allegation
against the applicant is that he was accompanying the main
accused and had assaulted the deceased along with him;
however, his implication appears to be primarily on the basis of the
memorandum statement of the co-accused. The only recovery
attributed to the applicant is that of one motorcycle, and there is no
other cogent or direct evidence connecting the applicant with the
alleged offence. Further the name of the applicant surfaced after a
lapse of nearly five years from the date of the alleged incident, and
that too solely on the basis of the memorandum statement of a co-
accused and the applicant was thereafter arrested. Without
expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, and considering
the nature of evidence, the role attributed to the applicant, and the
period of custody, this Court is inclined to allow the application.
7. Let the applicant be released on bail on his furnishing a personal
bond Rs. 10,000/- with one surety to each applicants in the like
amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following
conditions:-
(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that
he 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.
(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court
on each date fixed, either personally or through their
counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause,
the trial court may proceed against them under Section 269
of Bhartiya Nyaya Sahita, 2023
(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during
trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under
Section 84 of BNSS 2023. 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 him, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of
Bhartiya Nyaya Sahita, 2023
(iv) 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 2023 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 them
in accordance with law.
8. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial
Court concerned for necessary information.
9. It is made clear that the observations made hereinabove is only for
the purpose of deciding the bail application and the trial Court will
decide the case on its own merit without being influenced by any
observation made hereinabove. It is also made clear that the trial
Court is at liberty to cancel the bail application of the applicant in
the event of applicant involving himself in similar offence in future.
Sd/-
(Arvind Kumar Verma)
Judge
Jyoti
