1 2025:CGHC:22750 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 3686 of 2025 1 - Saraswati Hansraj W/o Late Madhusudan Hansraj Aged About 35 Years R/o Shanti Nagar, Rajgamar, Out Post - Rajgamar, Police Station - Balco, District - Korba, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh, Through - Station House Officer, Out Post - Rajgamar, Police Station - Balco, District - Korba, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Dharmesh Srivastava, Adv. For Respondent/State : Ms. Priya Sharma, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board 09 / 0 6 / 202 5 1. The accused/applicant has moved this first bail application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 for releasing her on regular bail during trial in connection with Crime No. 450/2024 registered at Police Station – Balco Nagar, Out Post - Rajgamar, District – Korba (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 34 of IPC. Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2025.06.10 10:33:26 +0530 2 2. The prosecution's case, in brief, is that the husband/deceased of the applicant used to quarrel with his wife/applicant due to doubts about the character of his wife. On 17.06.2024 at about 10:00 pm, when the deceased doubted the character of his wife Saraswati Chauhan and started quarrel, the wife/applicant of the deceased and one co-accused Raj Kumar Chauhan, with the intention of killing the deceased, caught hold of the deceased’s head and hair and hit him hard against the wall. The deceased died due to a serious head injury after hitting on the wall. To hide the cause of death of the deceased, co-accused Raj Kumar Chauhan had lodged a merg report regarding the deceased committing suicide by hanging himself with a rope on the bathroom wall in the courtyard of his house. On investigation, it was found that the death was not due to hanging but due to head injury caused by a hard and blunt object. Based on this, offence has been registered against the present applicant along with another co- accused person. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. He next submits that there is nothing to show the involvement of the present applicant except the memorandum statement of the applicant and the co- 3 accused. He further submits that there is no eye-witness to the incident and as per merg intimation to the police, it is a case of hanging of a drunk person and thereafter the dead body was sent for postmortem on or after 11:00 am of 18.06.2024 but short postmortem report attached with the charge sheet would reveal that the doctor has prepared the short PM report at about 10:50 am morning before seeing the dead body, which is false and fabricated. He also submits that the applicant is in jail since 20.09.2024, and only 04 witnesses out of 21 witnesses have been examined till date, and there is no likelihood of her case being decided in the near future, therefore, the present applicant may be released on bail. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application and submits that as per the postmortem report, the deceased died due to head injury and not from hanging. Only 04 witnesses out of 21 witnesses have been examined till date, and there are some important witnesses still remaining to be examined; therefore, at this stage, the applicant may not be enlarged on bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 4 6. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, particularly looking to the material available on record and also considering the fact that the deceased was husband of the present applicant and as per the postmortem report the deceased was died due to head injury in his house, further considering the fact that only 04 witnesses out of 21 witnesses have been examined and some important witnesses are still remaining for examination, at this stage, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail. 7. Accordingly, the bail application filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 is rejected. However, concerned trial Court is directed to expedite the trial as early as possible. 8. Office is directed to sent a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge H.L. Sahu