1 2025:CGHC:22757 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 4231 of 2025 Panchram Gour @ Panchu S/o Late Ganesh Ram Gour Aged About 65 Years R/o Village Bichpara Chikhli, P.S. Dondi, District Balod Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through S.H.O. Dondi, District Balod Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. B.P. Singh, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Sunita Manikpuri, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order On Board 09/06/2025 1. The applicant has preferred this 1st bail application under Section 483 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita Act 2023 for grant of regular bail as he is arrested in connection with crime No. 23/2025, registered at Police Station – Dondi, District- Balod (C.G.) for offence punishable under Sections 109, 118(2), 103 & 3 (5) of BNS, 2023. 2. As per prosecution story, the allegation against the applicant is that he had assaulted Nik Ram God, Bartanin Bai God, and Nirmala God with a bladed axe, causing grievous injuries to their heads and hands. As a Digitally signed by SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Date: 2025.06.11 10:58:17 +0530 2 result of severe head injury inflicted during the assault, Nik Ram God succumbed to his injuries. Based on above, crime was registered against the present applicant. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the crime in question. In the present case the main accused is Uday Ram (co-accused). The weapon used in the crime in question was seized from the possession of Uday Ram. No seizure has been made from the possession of the present applicant. He further submits that the applicant is an old aged person and he is in jail since 17.02.2025, charges have not been framed till date and the trial is likely to some time to be finalized, therefore, it is prayed that the applicant may be enlarged on bail. 4. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the bail application and submits that the applicant had instigated Uday Ram (Son of the Applicant) to commit the alleged offence. She further submits that eye-witnesses of the case Bartanin, Nirmala and Ku. Tejesha remain to be examined before the Trial Court, therefore, the applicant may not be released on bail. 5. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, evidence collected by the prosecution against the applicant further considering that important witnesses remained to be examined, at this stage, without further commenting on merits of the case, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail. 7. Accordingly, the bail application is Rejected. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Shubham