1 2025:CGHC:24483 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 3964 of 2025 1 - Mohan Banjare S/o Late Shri Sukhdas Banjare Aged About 30 Years R/o Vill.- Chattera, P.S. - Arang, Raipur, District (Revenue And Civil) - Raipur (C.G.). ... Applicant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Station House Officer, Police Station - Arang, District - Raipur (C.G.). ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Anoop Kumar T. Sharma, Adv. For Respondent/State : Ms. Sunita Sahu, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board 16 / 0 6 / 202 5 1. The accused/applicant has moved this first bail application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 for releasing him on regular bail during trial in connection with Crime No. 46/2024 registered at Police Station – Arang, District – Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2025.06.17 10:41:36 +0530 2 2. The allegation against the applicant is that on the date of offence i.e. 20.01.2024 at about 11:00 am, the applicant committed the murder of his wife Saraswati Banjare by means of sickle. Based on this, offence has been registered against the present applicant. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. He next submits that the entire prosecution case hinges on an alleged telephonic intimation purportedly made by a relative of the deceased, which became the foundational basis of FIR registration and subsequent investigation. However, even after having adequate time to conclude the final report under Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C. within the statutory period of 90 days, the investigating agency has failed to produce any call detail records CDR), service provider verification, tower location confirmation, phone number identification/verification or even a basic certification under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. He further submits that the statements recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. of prime witnesses Lilesh Banjare (son) and Vandana Banjare (minor daughter) clearly reflect that both children were not residing at the matrimonial home of the deceased at the relevant time. He also submits that the applicant is in jail since 21.01.2024 and only 7 witnesses out of 17 witnesses have been examined till date, 3 and there is no likelihood of his 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 the applicant committed a heinous crime of murder of his wife. She also submits that in the present case, Vandana Banjare, daughter of the deceased, is an eyewitness who has not been examined; therefore, at this stage, he may not be enlarged on bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, particularly looking to the material available on record and the evidence collected by the prosecution against the applicant. Further considering the fact that in the present case, Vandana Banjare, daughter of the deceased, is an eyewitness who has not been examined yet, at this stage, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail. Accordingly, the bail application filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023, is rejected. 7. However, the concerned trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and to ensure that the trial is concluded as expeditiously as possible. 4 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