1 / 3 2025:CGHC:12148 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 561 of 2025 1 - Sanju Singh S/o Shri Balisingh Marpachi Aged About 24 Years R/o Village Kundeli Thana Jaitpur District -Sehdol (Madhya Pradesh ) Present Address Yasnavi Factory Village Acholi Thana Urla Raipur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer Thana Urla District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Mahesh Kumar Mishra, Advocate For State : Ms. Pragya Shrivastava, Dy. GA (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board 11/03/2025 1. This is the Second bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Shuraksha Sanhita for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested on 12/09/2023 in connection with Crime No.360/2023, registered at Police Station- Urla, District Raipur, C.G. for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 201 & 34 IPC. ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA Date: 2025.03.17 17:07:33 +0530 2 / 3 2. Earlier the First Bail Application bearing M.Cr.C. No.1160 of 2024 was dismissed as withdrawn on 28/02/2024 with liberty to repeat the prayer after examination of material witnesses. 3. The case of the prosecution in brief is that applicant along with the co-accused Bali Singh and Ramlal Singh committed murder of the deceased on the ground that he had some illicit relation with wife and daughter of the co-accused and in order to destroy the evidence threw the dead-body in the mud. Thereafter, on the basis of the report of the complainant an offence under Section 302, 201/34 IPC was registered and the investigation was started. Thereafter, on the basis of the memorandum of the applicant seizure was made and the applicant was arrested. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated and the entire case is based on the extra judicial confession before Udham Singh, who turned hostile. He would next contend that even perusal of the FIR do not constitute any offence under Section 307, 201 & 34 IPC. He would lastly contend that the applicant is in jail since 12/09/2023 and trial is likely to take some time as out of 18 witnesses only 8 witnesses have been examined, therefore, it is prayed that the applicant may be released on bail. 5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the bail applications submitted by the applicants. 3 / 3 6. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties, perused the case diary and other materials available on record. 7. Perusal of the record shows that before the trial Court as many as 8 witnesses have been examined, therefore, at this stage evaluating the statement of the witnesses would amount to usurpting the power of the trial Court while hearing the bail and it is for the trial Court to consider the merits of the case. Under the circumstances and considering the the nature of the allegation, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail. 8. Accordingly, the bail application is dismissed. SD/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE ashu