Mukesh Chandrakar’s Killing: The Bijapur Road Investigation and the Risks Facing Independent Journalists

In January 2025, independent journalist Mukesh Chandrakar was found murdered in Bijapur, Chhattisgarh. His death followed reporting on alleged irregularities in a local road construction project. Police subsequently alleged that the reporting had angered a contractor and led to a planned killing. The case is not simply about one journalist’s tragic death: it shows the danger that can arise when reporters investigate public spending and the people benefiting from it.

From a difficult childhood to independent reporting

Chandrakar grew up in Basaguda in Bijapur district amid poverty and conflict. His father died when he was very young. His mother worked as an anganwadi worker and later died of cancer. Reports disagree on the precise year of her death, so that detail should not be treated as settled. His family was displaced during violence in Bastar, and he worked in jobs including motorcycle repair before building a journalism career.

Inspired in part by his elder brother Yukesh, a journalist, Chandrakar reported from difficult-to-reach areas of Bastar, covering the Maoist conflict, local communities and public affairs. He contributed to television news outlets and built his own YouTube channel, Bastar Junction. That independent platform let him report on subjects that were not always prominently covered by larger newsrooms, while also leaving him exposed to local pressure.

The road investigation that preceded his death

In late December 2024, reporting connected with Chandrakar raised questions about the quality and management of road construction in Bijapur, including work linked to contractor Suresh Chandrakar, a relative of the journalist. The reporting prompted an official inquiry. According to police accounts reported in March 2025, the scrutiny expanded to other projects, and investigators alleged the contractor became angry about the financial and official consequences.

The distinction matters: allegations about construction irregularities are not themselves a final finding of corruption, and the police’s explanation of a murder motive is a prosecution case until tested in court. However, the sequence of reporting, official scrutiny, disappearance and homicide is supported by multiple contemporaneous accounts.

Disappearance, recovery of the body and the police case

Chandrakar went missing on 1 January 2025. His brother reported him missing, and police found his body on 3 January in a septic tank on a property associated with Suresh Chandrakar in Bijapur. Investigators arrested four men: Suresh Chandrakar, Ritesh Chandrakar, Dinesh Chandrakar and Mahendra Ramteke.

On 18 March 2025, Bijapur police filed a chargesheet of more than 1,200 pages naming the four accused. The Special Investigation Team alleged that Chandrakar had been killed in retaliation for his reporting on substandard road construction. According to reporting on the chargesheet, investigators cited phone records, CCTV material and a list of 72 witnesses. These are allegations and evidence descriptions from the investigation, not a conviction or a final judicial ruling.

As of this account’s review on 22 October 2026, the available reporting examined here establishes the chargesheet but does not establish a final trial verdict. The charges should not be reported as findings of guilt.

Why the case matters beyond Bijapur

The reported link between Chandrakar’s journalism and the alleged motive for his killing is deeply troubling. Investigative reporting on public contracts is part of the public’s ability to learn whether roads are being built properly and public money is being used lawfully. A reporter should not face threats or violence for asking those questions. The killing itself was a grave injustice; whether each accused bears criminal responsibility remains for a court to decide.

Local and freelance journalists can be especially exposed because their work requires regular contact with influential officials, contractors and armed actors, while they may lack the legal support, financial security and protection available to reporters at larger institutions. Chandrakar’s experience in conflict-affected Bastar illustrates the importance of independent local reporting and the risks attached to doing it.

His murder also leaves two separate questions requiring accountability: whether the underlying road projects met public standards, and whether the prosecution can prove who planned and carried out the killing. Neither question should disappear behind the other.

Where the case stands

The confirmed public record includes Chandrakar’s death, four arrests and a March 2025 police chargesheet alleging retaliatory murder. It does not justify describing the accused as convicted. Independent scrutiny of road-contract records and subsequent court proceedings remains necessary to establish the full legal outcome.

Mukesh Chandrakar’s work mattered because it brought attention to communities and public projects that might otherwise receive little scrutiny. His killing demonstrates why journalists must be able to investigate the use of public funds without intimidation or violence, and why both an impartial murder trial and credible examination of the contracts are essential.