1 2025:CGHC:22413 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 3672 of 2025 1 - Devnarayan Verma S/o. Gaukaran Verma Aged About 21 Years R/o. Village - Murra, Thana Nandghat, Dist. Bemetara (C.G.). 2 - Umesh Kumar Verma S/o. Ramprasad Verma Aged About 23 Years R/o. Village - Murra, Thana Nandghat, Dist. Bemetara (C.G.). Applicants versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh through the Police Station - Sargaon, Dist. Mungeli (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicants : Mr. Uttam Pandey, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Ajay Pandey, Govt. Advocate. (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Order on Board 27/05/2025 1. This is first bail application filed under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. A ANNAJEE RAO Digitally signed by A ANNAJEE RAO 2 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicants in connection with Crime No.04/2025 registered at Police Station Sargaon, District Mungeli (C.G) for the offence punishable under sections 103(1), 109, 296, 115(2), 351(2), 3(5) of BNSS 2023 and sections 25 & 27 of the Arms Act. 2. According to the prosecution story, on 13.01.2025 at about 2.30 pm complainant Abhay Sahu went to visit Madkudweep fair on foot along with his friends Akash Satnami, Bunty Gendle & Dhaneshwar Sahu. After visiting the fair, they reached near the swing (Jhula) in the fair at about 4.30 pm. Meanwhile, Akash Satnami, Dhaneshwar Sahu & Abhay Satnami stayed at the fair and the complainant came out after swinging in the fair with Bunty. At a short distance, he noticed that the present applicants Umesh Verma, Devnarayan Verma as also Videshi Verma, and Bhupendra of village Murra were fighting with some people and they also abused the complainant in the name of his mother and sister and threatened to kill him and hit him, due to which, the complainant sustained head injury. Any-how, the complainant ran away and went towards the fair, where he informed the people of his village namely Rohit Sahu, Badal alias Sanjay Bargah, Manish Sahu, Rakesh Yadav, Laden alias Sanjay Bargah, Karan Yadav, Rinku Manhar. When the complainant narrated the incident that occurred with him, they talked to the present applicants and other accused Videshi & Bhupendra. Thereafter, the complainant along-with Rohit Sahu, Badal, Manish Sahu, Rakesh Yadav, Laden @ Sanjay Bargah, Rinku Manhar came to the parking place of a school whereas Karan Yadav stayed in the fair. After about 15 – 20 minutes, it was found that on the same 3 dispute the present applicants together with other accused Videshi and Bhupendra of village Murra hit Karan Yadav with hands, kicks , stick, belt and knife with the intention of killing him and ran away and Karan Yadav was lying unconscious near the swing. Upon receiving the above information, the complainant and his companions went to the scene and saw that Karan Yadav had deep cuts on his chest and neck and blood was oozing. On the above information of the complainant, a case was registered by the Sargaon Police Station and investigation was taken up. The injured Karan Yadav and Abhay Sahu (complainant) were taken to CHC for treatment, from where Karan Yadav was further referred to CIMS Hospital Bilaspur, and on the way he died before reaching the CIMS Hospital. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants read out the statement of eye- witness and submits that the eye-witness has not been able to state that who has assaulted the deceased and the prosecution story is entirely based on the version of hear-say witnesses. He submits that the present applicants are innocents and they have been falsely been implicated in this case. 4. Per contra, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the offence is serious and there is sufficient evidence against the accused and still the trial has not commenced, therefore, the bail application should be rejected. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case 4 and since the trial has not yet commenced and further looking to the evidence collected in police investigation, this Court is not inclined to release the applicants on regular bail at this stage. Accordingly, this bail application filed u/s 483 of BNSS 2023 is rejected. Note After passing the order, learned counsel for the applicants adamantly argued that if there is no evidence against the applicants to connect them with the crime in question, it would not be appropriate for this Court to reject the bail application and till date he has never seen bail being rejected by any court in such a case and if his arguments are not acceptable, he may be exempted from hearing his cases by this Court for ever. This kind of behaviour and argument of Mr. Uttam Pandey, Advocate, are not befitting to him and the remarks made by him be kept on record. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge R a o