High Court refuses bail for Amit Baghel and two others in Balodabazar arson and stone-pelting case; primary keyword: Balodabazar violence

The Chhattisgarh High Court on Thursday rejected bail applications of Amit Baghel, founder of the Chhattisgarh Kranti Sena, and two co-accused in the Balodabazar violence that erupted after a protest on June 10 last year, saying the incident “seriously disrupted law and order” and led to massive damage to public and private property.

Judgment and reasoning

Justice N.K. Vyas, hearing the case at the Bilaspur bench, dismissed nine bail pleas filed by Baghel, Novil Kumar Navrang and Dinesh Kumar Verma. According to the court’s order, the accused incited a crowd of 7,000–8,000 people and the ensuing violence caused estimated losses of Rs 13–14 crore to government and private property. The bench noted that police personnel were also attacked and several officers suffered serious injuries.

“Such grave offences which completely disturb peace and public order cannot be allowed the benefit of bail,” the court observed, according to court records made available to reporters.

Sequence of events

Initial reports indicate the disturbances began at a Dussehra ground in Balodabazar on the afternoon of June 10, 2024, during a protest on a social issue. Authorities say leaders of the Chhattisgarh Kranti Sena delivered inflammatory speeches from the dais that provoked the crowd.

Witnesses and police accounts filed with the court state that the mob thereafter breached barricades and forced entry into the collectorate and Superintendent of Police’s office complex. Vehicles were set ablaze, and parts of the collectorate building were torched. Officials estimate the financial loss at Rs 13–14 crore, including damage to public infrastructure and private cars.

Police response and charges

Police registered multiple cases naming Baghel, Ajay Yadav, Dinesh Verma and others under sections relating to rioting, arson and assault on public servants. Officers who attempted to control the mob say they were pelted with stones, beaten with rods and attacked with iron bars, resulting in several serious injuries among on-duty personnel.

State counsel opposing the bail applications highlighted the accuseds’ prior criminal records. Court documents show 17 cases pending against Baghel, 13 against Ajay Yadav, and one against Dinesh Verma. The bench contrasted this record with a co-accused who had been granted bail after two months in custody and who, the judge observed, had no prior criminal history.

Claims by accused and court’s view

During the hearing, Baghel’s lawyer argued that he was not present at the site of violence and claimed that between 12pm and 3pm on June 10 Baghel was at the registrar’s office with his wife, engaged in a property registration matter. The defence submitted registry documents in support.

The High Court, however, held that the materials produced did not prove Baghel’s presence at the registrar’s office during the riot and described the claim as not standing up to scrutiny. The court said the submissions appeared to be “beyond truth” and insufficient to counter the gravity of allegations and prior conduct.

Impact and local reaction

Locals in Balodabazar recall the day as chaotic. “We saw smoke and people running. Many vehicles were burning and police were being hit,” said a resident who asked not to be named. Businesses around the collectorate remain wary, with some proprietors still repairing shattered shop fronts and replacing burnt stock.

The denial of bail means the accused will continue to remain in custody while trials and investigations proceed. The police have previously said they would continue collecting evidence, including video footage and witness statements, to strengthen charges.

What’s next

The court’s order came a day after Baghel was produced on a production warrant from Raipur; a lower court had earlier sent him to two days’ judicial remand. Investigating officers told the High Court they will file further charges as paperwork and forensic reports are completed.

The case is likely to return to court as both prosecution and defence prepare for full criminal trials. Meanwhile, local administration has said it will intensify security measures around the collectorate and review preventive arrangements for large gatherings.