1 2025:CGHC:19361 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 2979 of 2025 1 - Anjali Banarjee (Gritlahre) @ Naina W/o Devendra Banarjee Aged About 32 Years R/o Village- Duldula, Police Station- Simga, District- Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Applicant versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station- Torwa, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant : Shri Rajeev Kumar Dubey, Advocate. For Respondent : Ms. Sunita Manikpuri, Dy. Govt. Advocate. Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J Order on Board 29.04.2025 1. This is first bail application seeking grant of bail to the Applicant who is in jail since 16.09.2024 in connection with Crime No.359/2024 registered at Police Station Torwa, District Bilaspur for the offence punishable under Sections 61(2), 103, 238 read with Section 3(5) of BNSS, 2023. 2. As per prosecution case, on 13.09.2024 at about 2 PM the dead body of the deceased Devendra Banarjee, who was husband of the present applicant, was found in the field near village Dheka-Khapri, Raipur Bypass road. It was identified that dead body was of Devendra Digitally signed by INDRAJEET SAHU Date: 2025.04.29 18:24:10 +0530 2 Banarjee. During investigation the mobile call details of applicant was obtained and after collecting the evidences, the present applicant was arrested and her memorandum statement was recorded in which she disclosed the incident and after completion of investigation charge sheet was filed. 3. Learned Counsel for the applicant would submit that there is no direct evidence against the applicant. Only on the basis of memorandum she has been implicated in the offence. The mobile phone No.6260726815 allegedly seized from the applicant belongs to one Ashok Kumar Banjanre and not the applicant for which there was no investigation by the police. Call Detail Report is not authentic proof of her involvement in the offence in question. The applicant being lady have four minor children. Therefore, she may be released on bail as final adjudication may take sometime. 4. On the other hand the counsel for the State opposes the bail application and have submitted that from the memorandum statement of the applicant her mobile phone was seized in which there was frequent conversation with co-accused Deepak who is her relative. From her memorandum statement the motive has also been proved that due to harassment given by the deceased, relation between her and Deepak was developed and in order to eliminate the deceased she conspired with other accused persons, gave them contract and other accused persons committed murder of the deceased by causing injury on his Neck. There are sufficient material in the charge sheet against the applicant and it is an offence committed after hatching conspiracy with other accused persons. She would also submit that the applicant 3 in furtherance of their conspiracy gave location of the deceased to other accused persons, and therefore she is not entitled for bail. 5. Without commenting on merits, considering the submissions made by the counsel for the parties, considering the nature of allegation and material available in the charge sheet, further considering the nature of evidence available in the case diary and the gravity of the offence, this Court is of the opinion that present is not a fit case where the Applicant can be enlarged on bail. 6. Accordingly, the application for grant of bail is rejected. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge inder