1 2025:CGHC:3677 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 130 of 2025 1 - Umesh Sahu S/o Late Ranulal Sahu Aged About 37 Years R/o Ward No. 12, Gandai, District Khairagarh- Chhuikhadan- Gandai (C.G.) (Wrongly Mentioned As District Khairgarh In The Impugned Order) ... Appellant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station- Mohan Nagar, District Durg (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant : Mr. Prasoon Agrawal, Advocate For State : Mr. Santosh Soni, Government Advocate (Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge) Order on Board 21/01/2025 1. Applicant has filed this first bail application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S., 2023 for grant of regular bail as he is arrested in connection with Crime No. 352/2023 registered at Police Station – Mohan Nagar District Durg (C.G.) for offence punishable under Section 302, 120B, 201 reach with Section 34 of IPC. 2. Case of prosecution in brief is that on 16.08.2023 Madhu Yadav lodged a report to the concerned police station that in the intervening night upon hearing a loud noise of blast she awoke and saw the bathroom was under fire. She immediately informed to Bhupendra Yadav, husband of co-accused Supriya Yadav, about the incident and upon extinguishing the fire they saw Supriya Yadav died due to burn injuries. During investigation, police came to know that co-accused Supriya Yadav is well and alive and is residing at Gandai. During search, co- accused Supriya Yadav was found in her parental house at Gandai and Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 during interrogation she narrated entire story that she along with co- accused Pradeep Janghel and the applicant had conspired and one dead body was put on fire in the bathroom of house of Supriya Yadav. Based on the statement of co-accused Supriya Yadav, Pradeep Janghel and present applicant were arrested and their memorandum statements were also recorded. 3. Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant is innocent. He has been falsely implicated in the aforementioned crime. During trial, material witnesses have been examined and have not supported case of prosecution. Copy of deposition of Manharan Markan, Laxmanram Dewangan, Krishna Kumar Dewangan and Khemlal Sahu are filed along with the bail application. Applicant is in jail since 20.08.2023, hence, he may be enlarged on bail. 4. Learned State counsel opposes the submission made by learned counsel for the applicant and would submit that according to charge- sheet, there are ample material available against applicant of his involvement in the instant crime. However, he submits that submission of learned counsel for applicant that prosecution witnesses have not supported case of prosecution is subject matter of appreciation by learned trial Court. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties. 6. Taking into consideration facts and circumstances of the case, nature of allegation, period of pre-trial detention of applicant, without commenting anything on merits of the case, I am inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail. 7. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. It is directed that the applicants shall be released on regular bail, upon furnishing a bail bond 3 in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court on the conditions that - (a) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (b) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (c) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure her presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (d) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 351 of BNSS. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. 8. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Certified copy as per rules. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Shayna JUDGE