1 2025:CGHC:1141 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 73 of 2025 1 - Sunita Bai W/o Bhadu Sahu Aged About 47 Years R/o Village Loharidih, Police Station And Tehsil Rengakharkala, District - Kabirdham (C.G.) --- Applicant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Station House OfÏcer, Police Station - Rengakhar, District - Kabirdham (C.G.) --- Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, Adv. For-Non-applicant : Mr. Pragya Shrivastava, Dy. G.A. Hon’ble Shri Arvind Kumar Vema, Judge Order on Board 08/01/2025 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the B.N.S.S. for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 65/2024 registered at Police Station Rengakhar District Kabirdham (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 103(1), 103(2), 238(a), 191(2), 191(3), 189(4)(5), 332(a), 324(6), 287, 310(3), 326(g), 61(2)(a), 115(2) of B.N.S. 2023. 2. The allegation against the present applicant as per the prosecution case is that the complainant Vinod Sahu Son of the deceased Raghunath Sahu, lodged a report on 15.09.2024 at about 6:00 pm evening against 167 named persons and some other persons alleging 2 inter-alia that his father was Sarpanch of Village Panchayat for 3 tenture of 5 years and presently his mother is holding the post of Sarpanch whereas his father was working as Up-sarpanch. It was stated by the complainant that 9-10 months ago, her mother has been removed from the post of Sarpanch by no-confidence motion by the villagers and his father was working as Up-sarpanch who was also tried to be removed but it could not be done and for that reasons, the villagers were having grudge from them and on 15.09.2024 his brother- in-law namely Suresh Kumar Sahu came to his house at about 10:00 am to take his mother to doctor and all the family members were present in the house, then only more than 150-200 persons entered into the house of the complainant and told that they have hung the dead body of Shiv Prasad after committing murder of him and they started damaged the house with the help of mob and looted rice, pulses, paddy, oil, ornaments and all other articles of the house. The complainant succeeded to escape from there along with his wife and children and entered into the house of neighbor Mohan Yadav. It was alleged by the complainant that co-accused persons of the same village namely Premlal, Chintaram, Naresh Sahu, Bijelal, Pardeshi Meravi, Laxmichand, Ghanshyam etc., poured petrol diesel and some stubble over the house of the complainant and same was set on fire. Thereafter Police came there and tried to enter into the house of complainant to save mother and father of the complainant but the villagers/accused persons were not allowing them and preventing the police ofÏcers to enter the house but the police any how entered into house of the complainant and took out his mother from the house and sent her to hospital for treatment. It was further alleged as his mother was sent to 3 hospital by police then the villagers became more anger and they started quarrel/assault to the police persons and after some time, a police force reached there then the complainant entered into his house with the police persons and in search of dead body, his father was found in a room who was fully burnt and some iron rods and glasses were found nearby the dead body. Total 167 persons were named in the first information report. On the basis of report lodged by the complainant, the police registered an offence bearing crime No. 65/2024 and investigation was initated. After completion of the entire investigation, charge-shee twas filed against 43 accused persons. The present applicant has been arrested on 16/09/2024. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that as per the prosecution story, the entire incident was occurred by a mob due to a revenge as the father of the complainant has committed an offence of murder of one Shiv Prasad thus it is clear that there is no direct role of the present applicant in crime in question. It is clear that the complainant is unable to disclose the role attributed by the present applicant in crime in question. 4. It is respectfully submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that no any named FIR has been lodged against her, however the report was lodged against her husband Bhagwani Yadav and other 167 persons. Thus the present applicant is neither name in the FIR nor her roll has been mentioned by the complainant therefore the present applicant is entitled to enlarge on bail. 5. Learned counsel for the State however opposing the bail application submits that the complainant has lodged FIR with name of the present 4 applicant along with his husband name. There were as many as 29 witnesses and around 150-200 persons attacked on the house of the complainant and deceased was burnt 95 to 97 percent, thus prays for rejection of bail application. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of the offence, material available in the case diary and considering the fact that the complainant has lodged the named FIR against the present applicant mentioning her husband name and there were 29 witnesses who narrated the incident and further there were around 150-200 persons who attacked on the house of the complainant and they burnt the deceased about 95 to 97 percent, at this stage without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that present is not a fit case to release the applicant on regular bail. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant, is rejected, at this stage. 8. OfÏce is directed to sent a certified copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Jyoti Digitally signed by JYOTI JHA Date: 2025.01.18 15:56:13 +0530