1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 3325 of 2025 • Manjay Yadav Alias Lucky Yadav S/o Babulal Yadav Aged About 37 Years R/o Maharadeur Police Station Bhorey, District - Gopalganj, Bihar ... Applicant versus • State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Station House Officer, Police Station - Kharora, District - Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Arijit Tiwari, Advocate. For State/Respondent : Ms. Sunita Manikpuri, Dy.G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board 09/06/2025 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 728/2023 registered at Police Station Kharora, District Raipur (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 382, 302 and 201, 120-b, 397 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code. SOURABH PATEL Digitally signed by SOURABH PATEL Date: 2025.06.10 10:10:40 +0530 2 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that complainant Chetan Kumar lodged a report before police station that on 26.10.2023 his truck bearing registration No. CG07CH5189 was being driven by Parmeshwar Yadav (deceased) from Siltara to Baloda Bazaar to transport 300 buckets of urea and on 27.10.2023, his phone was switched off and when the complainant enquired about the status of transportation, it was informed to him that the consignment was not delivered and when the same was traced, it came in knowledge of the present complainant that vehicle is standing near Arang. However, the urea was not there and on 31.10.2023, it was informed by Police Station Kharora that some unknown person has murdered deceased Parmeshwar Yadav and stolen 300 buckets of urea amounting to Rs.3,35,451/-. Thereafter, offence has been registered and the present applicant has been arrested. 3. It has been argued by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. He further argued that the applicant has no connection with the offences charged against him. A deliberate and false case has been registered against the present applicant as part of a deliberate conspiracy. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has no criminal antecedent and he is in jail since 06.11.2023. He further submits that apart from the present applicant, two other accused persons namely Ritesh Sinha and Indrasan Yadav have also been arrested while three co-accused persons namely Sanjay, Chandan and Bagesh 3 are absconding and one co-accused Nagendra jaiswal has already been granted anticipatory bail by the trial Court. He next submits that only on the basis of CCTV footage, the present applicant has been prosecuted as he was present at the scene but this footage is not supported by a certifficate under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act. He also submits that no recovery has been made from the present applicant and out of 24 witnesses, only 05 witnesses have been examined till date and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take quite long time. Therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel would oppose the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant and would submit that there is specific allegation against the present applicant as he has also present in the place of incident and involved in the said crime. Hence, the present applicant may not be enlarged on bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of offence, and also considering the fact that applicant Manjay Yadav @ Lucky is in custody since 06.11.2023 and out of 24 witnesses, only 05 witnesses have been examined. Apart from the present applicant, out of 06 accused persons, two accused namely Indrasan Yadav and Ritesh Sinha are arrested, while three co-accused Sanjay, Chandan and Bagesh are absconding and one co-accused 4 Nagendra Jaiswal has already been granted anticipatory bail by the trial Court. There is no direct evidence against the present applicant and no seizure has been made from the present applicant. In such a situation, his custody period is more than one and half years and the trial is likely to take considerable time, and therefore, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 7. Accordingly, the application is allowed and it is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court. Applicant is directed to appear before the trial Court on each and every date to be given to him by the said Court till disposal of the trial. It is made clear that any observation made by this Court in this order shall not affect the trial of the case. 8. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Sourabh P.