1 2025:CGHC:15508 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRC No. 2551 of 2025 Karan Nayak S/o Ramesh Nayak Aged About 19 Years R/o Bazar Chowk, Sarona, Police Station Deen Dayal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) … Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Deen Dayal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate For Respondent/State :Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Deputy Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 02.04.2025 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. 386 of 2024, registered at Police Station- Deen Dayal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 103(1), 190, 191(2)(3), 61(2) and Section 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. 2 2. Brief facts of this case are that, as per the case of the prosecution on 06.10.2024 at about 12:40 AM an FIR was lodged by Shankar Nayak in connection with an incident that allegedly occurred around 10:00 PM on 05.10.2024. It is alleged that Pravin Yadav and Durgesh Sen were traveling to Sarona Basti on a motorcycle when they lost control and fell. At that moment, the deceased, Abhay nema, made a remark mocking their inability to ride a vehicle and subsequently slapped Pravin Yadav, following this altercation, Pravin Yadav made a phone call to his friend, Prem Yadav, requesting him to come to the scene. Shortly, thereafter, Prem Yadav, Purushottam Yadav, and Karan Nayak assembled and began searching for Abhay Netam. They eventually located him near the residence of Sonu Yadav in Sarona Basti. With the intention to seek revenge, the accused individuals, namely Pravin Yadav, Prem Yadav, Karan Nayak, and Purushottam Yadav, launched a physical assault on Abhay Netam, striking him with their fists, stick, and a knife, thereby causing grievous injuries. The complainant Sonu Yadav who is the uncle of the deceased informed about the incident and he only rushed the deceased to the hospital for medical treatment. However, after due examination, the attending doctor declared him dead. 3 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 further contended that memorandum statement of the other co-accused persons clearly shows that the present applicant was not at all involved in the alleged incident and only the other co-accused persons are responsible for their own acts. In the final report, police has failed to establish any causal connection between the alleged incident and involvement of present applicant as no weapon or incident related materiel has been found and seized from the present applicant as well as, no blood stains were found on the clothes worn by the applicant at the time of incident. He also contended that the FIR was registered by Shankar Nayak, who was not present at the place of incident. Furthermore, the statement of Shankar Nayak is based on information received by him through the friends of the deceased. The eyewitness, Sonu Yadav, has failed to specify the manner and means by which the applicant allegedly caused injuries to the deceased. The present applicant is in judicial custody from 06.10.2024 and is a young boy of about 19 years. He is ready to furnish adequate surety and shall abide by all the directions and conditions which may be imposed by this court for granting bail. 4 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application submitted by the applicant by stating that FSL report is positive, there are total 11 injuries sustained by the deceased. There is an active role of the applicant in the present case and all the incriminating circumstances of the case are somehow shows the involvement of the present 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, particularly to the fact that as per the post mortem report there were total 11 injuries sustained by the deceased. There were two eye witnesses and on perusal of the statement of these two eye witnesses this court has found that there is an active participation of the present applicant in committing the murder of the deceased. So far as the the other accused Durgesh Sen is concerned his first bail application bearing no. MCRC No. 1883 of 2025 which was allowed vide order dated 07.03.2025 it is evident that the name of Durgesh Sen is not mentioned in the FIR and on the basis of memorandum one stick has been recovered from him and there is no blood stain in the stick. Hence his case is entirely different from the present applicant. Therefore looking to the seriousness of the crime, name of the 5 present applicant in the FIR and the involvement in the case, this court is of the considered opinion that the present case is not a fit case for allowing the first bail application of the applicant. 7. Accordingly, the present MCRC stands rejected. 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