1 2025:CGHC:11746 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRC No. 1945 of 2025 Mohit Ram Tigga S/o Shri Tilak Ram Tigga Aged About 34 Years R/o Lipti Neechepara Thana Kapu District - Raigarh (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer Police Station Kapu District - Raigarh (C.G.) ... Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Aniruddha Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent/State :Ms. Pragya Shrivastava, Deputy Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 10.03.2025 1. The applicant has preferred this first bail application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 for grant of bail as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 39 of 2024, registered at Police Station- Kapu, district Raigarh (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 302 and 201 of IPC. 2. Brief facts of this case is that the applicant along with Sarpanch and village Kotwar had given the merg intimation on 01.02.2024 2 at the Police Station with the averment that the deceased Santosh Tigga and applicant are real brothers, the deceased entered applicants house by jumping over the wall and was trying to wake up the applicant by shouting but when the applicant did not wake up he broke the glass of applicants car with a brick and at the time he was drunk, he removed his clothes before his house and after some time he was found dead near his house, so on the basis of said information merg was registered and after preliminary investigation FIR was registered on 21.03.2024 alleging that he has committed the alleged offence and after completing of the investigation chargesheet was filed. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that, the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the alleged crime, he has not committed any offence as alleged against him. He also contended that FIR was registered after about more than 1 month 20 days of the alleged incident that too on the basis of merg intimation given by the applicant himself on the date of incident and the FIR was registered against the unknown person, however, when the prosecution agency could not find the actual culprit they implicated the present applicant int eh alleged commission of offence. Therefore, he pleads to allow the bail application of the applicant in the interest of justice. 3 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application submitted by the applicant. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the case and other materials available on record. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and further considering the nature of offence, and the evidence available on record it is crystal clear that the applicant is involved in the crime and there are clinching chain of evidences which proves the same. Therefore, this court is of the considered opinion that this case is not a fit case to allow the bail application of the applicant. 7. Accordingly, the instant miscellaneous criminal appeal stands dismissed. 8. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information and compliance forthwith. sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge alfiza