1 2025:CGHC:15777 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRC No. 2594 of 2025 1 - Smt. Chitrekha W/o Shri Kejuram Patle Aged About 35 Years R/o Village - Budhwara, Police Station - Fasterpur, District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh 2 - Smt. Rajani Patle W/o Shri Rambali Patle Aged About 30 Years R/o Village - Budhwara, Police Station - Fasterpur, District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh 3 - Smt. Meenakshi Patle W/o Makhan Patle Aged About 30 Years R/o Village - Budhwara, Police Station - Fasterpur, District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh ... Applicants versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Station House Officer, Police Station - Fasterpur, District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Applicants : Mr. Virendra Verma, Advocate For Respondent/State :Mr. Rishabh Singh Deo, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 03.04.2025 1. The applicant has preferred this Second bail application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 for grant of bail as they have been arrested in connection with Crime No. 72 of 2024, registered at Police Station- Fasterpur, district – Mungeli, Chhattisgarh for the offence punishable under Section 103(1), 109(2), 191(3), 190, 61(2)(a) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2 2. Brief facts of this case are that, informant Narendra Patle along with Kotwar of the village informed the police regarding death of one Bhagbali Patle due to commission of murder by assaulting him by hands, fists, clubs and wooden planks and thereafter dashed by a tractor. On the basis of this, merg intimation was recorded on zero and subsequently it was registered as merg intimation no. 19/2024 as well as Dehati Nalsi/FIR on zero and subsequently it was registered as Crime No. 72 of 2024 for the commission of the aforementioned section. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants contended that, the applicants are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in the alleged crime, they have not committed any offence as alleged against them. He further contended that neither memorandum statement of the applicants were recorded nor any article was seized from their exclusive possession which shows that there is no involvement of the present applicants in crime in question, they are entitled to be enlarged on bail. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application submitted by the applicants and submitted that there is an active role of the applicants in the present case and all the incriminating circumstances of the case are somehow shows the involvement of the present applicants. Hence the bail must not be granted to them in the interest of justice. 3 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 it is a double murder case which took place in the broad day light. Hence looking to the seriousness of the crime and the incriminating evidences which are connecting the applicants to the crime so alleged, this court is of the considered opinion that the present case is not a fit case to enlarge on bail the applicants of the present case. 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