1 2025:CGHC:13630 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRC No. 2263 of 2025 Rita Jumde W/o Tirupati Jumde Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Mormed, P.S. Toynar, District Bijapur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, P.S. Toynar District Bijapur (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Ms. Renu Kochar, Advocate For Respondent/State : Ms. Pragya Shrivastava, Dy. Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 21.03.2025 1. The applicant has preferred this Second bail application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 for grant of bail as she has been arrested in connection with Crime No.104/2023, registered at Police Station- Toynar District Bijapur, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Brief facts of this case are that the complainant namely Suresh Jumbe lodged FIR on 03.06.2023 against the applicant in Police 2 Station Toynar that it has been informed by the applicant that she has assaulted the deceased during scuffle between husband and wife as the deceased was drunk during the time of incident subsequently FIR was lodged under Section 302 of IPC. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that, the present applicant has been falsely implicated in the case and no prima facie has been made out against her. On the basis of memorandum statement she has been arrested and PW-05 who is the witness to the memorandum has not supported the case of the prosecution. Even PW-01 and PW-02 has been examined by the prosecution and they too have not supported the case. No direct evidence is there which could actually connect the present applicant with the incident. Hence she prays that the present application be allowed and applicant be granted bail in the interest of justice. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application submitted by the applicant. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the respective 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 seriousness of offence, particularly to the fact that there is no substantial changes in the 3 circumstantial facts fo the case . There are 12 witnesses listed by the prosecution, out of which 08 has already been examined. Charge sheet has been filed before the concerned Trial court. Hence, this court is of the considered opinion that the present case is not a fit case to allow the application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail. 7. Accordingly, the present MCRC stands rejected. However, concerned Trial court is directed to expedite the pending trial as soon as possible, if there remains no legal impediment. 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