1 2025:CGHC:22072 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 3011 of 2025 1 - Krishna Kumar Sahu S/o Shri Purushottam Sahu Aged About 51 Years R/o Darra, Ward No. 07, Police Outpost- Giroudpuri, Thana- Gidhauri, Distt- Balodabazar- Bhatapara ( C.G. ). 2 - Umesh Kumar Sahu S/o Shri Purushottam Sahu Aged About 33 Years R/o Darra, Ward No. 07, Police Outpost- Giroudpuri, Thana- Gidhauri, Distt- Balodabazar- Bhatapara ( C.G. ). ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer, Police Station- Gidhauri, Police Station- Gidhauri, Police Outpost- Giroudpuri, Distt- Dhamtari ( C.G. ). ( Name Of Police Outpost Gidhpuri Wrongly Mentioned In The Order ) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Shri Rajendra Patel, Advocate For Respondent/State For Objector : : Shri Sanjeev Pandey, Dy.AG Shri Ravikar Patel, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board 15/05/2025 The applicants have filed this bail application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrrik Suraksha Sanhita for grant of regular bail 2 as they are in custody in connection with Crime No.236/2024 registered at police station Gidhauri, Police Outpost Giroudhpuri, District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara (CG) for the offence punishable under Sections 296, 103(1) and 3(5) of the BNS,2023. 2. Prosecution case in brief is that on 30.10.2024, complainant Subhash Kumar Sahu lodged a report at police outpost Giroudhpuri alleging that on 29.10.2024 at about 10.00 pm, his brother had informed to him by phone that his uncle was being assaulted/beaten by four accused persons and on hearing the same, he reached the spot and saw the accused persons assaulting with hands, fists and by brick. He intervened in the matter and thereafter took the injured to Government Hospital Kasdol where the doctors have declared dead. On the basis of the said report, offence against the present applicants and two others were registered. 4. Counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the case. He submits that the allegation for causing injury is against the co-accused persons and nothing has been seized from the present applicants. He further submits that the autopsy surgeon had not given any opinion regarding homicidal death and therefore offence under Section 103 is not made out against them. He submits that the applicant is in jail since 11.07.2024, the charge sheet has been filed and the trial is likely to take some time, he is ready and willing to comply with any of the conditions which may be imposed upon him and thus, it is submitted that the application be allowed and the applicant be released on bail. 3 5. Learned counsel for the respondent/State, as well as counsel for the objector on the other hand, has opposed the bail application and submits that there are four eyewitnesses to the incident who had supported the case of prosecution. 7. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. On due consideration of the rival submissions, from the records it appears that the applicants had assaulted the deceased and beaten to death and the eyewitnesses have also supported the case of prosecution, therefore looking to the nature and seriousness of the offence, I am not inclined to release the applicants on bail. Accordingly, their bail application is rejected. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge SUGUNA DUBEY Digitally signed by SUGUNA DUBEY Date: 2025.05.16 11:16:53 +0530