1 2025:CGHC:24856 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 4529 of 2025 Gajendra Singh S/o Sukhram Singh Aged About 27 Years R/o Village - Budhapara Kurtha, Police Outpost - Korbi, Police Station - Pasan, District - Korba (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Officer-In-Charge, Police Outpost - Korbi, Police Station - Pasan, District - Korba (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Devesh G. Kela, Advocate. For Non- applicant/State : Mr. Praveen Das, Deputy Advocate General Hon'ble Justice Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 17.06.2025 1. This is the First bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 03/2025 registered at Police Station Pasan, District Korba (C.G.), for the offences punishable under Sections 103(1), 109, 61(2) of the BNS, 2023 and Section 25/27 of the 2 Arms Act. 2. The prosecution's story, in brief, is that on 06.01.2025 at the complaint made by Manohar Pandey filed a written report stating that someone has shot with bullet his nephew Krishna Pandey and fled away. On the basis of said FIR offences was registered under Section 109 of BNS against an unknown person. During investigation on 16.01.2025 memorandum statement of Ramkumar was recorded and one motorcycle was recovered from him and on memorandum statement of Rajkumar pistol and cartridge was recovered from him. And thereafter applicant was arrested on 16.01.2025 and his memorandum statement was also recorded but no seizure was made from him. During treatment of the deceased, he died in CIMS Hospital, Bilaspur on 17.01.2025. After investigation charge sheet has been filed. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant is innocent person and has been falsely implicated in the aforesaid case. He submits that the entire prosecution story is based on the memorandum statement of co-accused Ramkumar and Rajkumar from whom recovery of motorcycle and pistol with magazine has been made. There is complete 3 absence of any direct or circumstantial evidence whereby the applicant can be connected to the alleged conspiracy or execution of offence. Neither overt act has been assigned to the applicant, nor there is any sort of evidence of meeting of mind or shared common intention. He further submitted that co-accused in the case Virendra Kumar Armo has been granted bail by this Court vide MCRC No. 3335/2025. The trial is likely to take some considerable time to conclude, hence he prays for grant of bail to the present applicant. 4. On the other hand learned State counsel opposes the bail application of the present applicant. He contended that he is one of the main accused of the crime in question and the facts of the case especially, the memorandum statement of Ramkumar, Rajkumar and his own memorandum statement shows that he played a key role int eh crime in question and cannot be said that no prima facie case is made out against the present applicant only on the basis that nothing has been recovered from him. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary with utmost circumspection. 4 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, specially from the memorandum statement of the Rajkumar, Ramkumar and the applicant that the present applicant has directed Rajkumar to kill Ramkumar and he even promised to RajKumar that he will pay a sum of Rs. 1 Lac for this. Thus it cannot be said that there is no prima facie case made out against the present applicant, in fact, it is crystal clear that criminal conspiracy under Section 120(b) of the Indian Penal Code has been made out. There are clear evidences with regard to the active participation of the present applicant and the motive behind this crime. Therefore, looking to the seriousness of the crime and also the participation of the present applicant in the crime in question, this court is not inclined to allow the bail application of the present applicant. 7. Accordingly, the present MCRC stands rejected. 8. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. sd/- alfiza (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge