1 2025:CGHC:32016 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 4556 of 2025 1 - Lakhamu Ram Koreti S/o Shri Rainu Ram Koreti Aged About 42 Years By Caste Gond, R/o Village Mandanar, Tahsil Amabeda, District North Baster Kanker, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Ratan Singh Matlam S/o Late Shri Lakhma Matlam Aged About 36 Years By Caste Gond, R/o Village Mandanar, Tahsil Amabeda, District North Baster Kanker, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicants versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Amabeda, District North Baster Kanker, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicants : Mr. Sunil Sahu, Adv. and Mr. Sumit Shrivastava, Adv. For Respondent/State : Ms. Sunita Manikpuri, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board 10 / 07 / 2025 1. The accused/applicants have moved this first bail application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 for releasing them on regular bail during trial in connection with Crime No. 02/2025 registered at Police Station – Amabeda, Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2025.07.11 10:33:21 +0530 2 District – North Baster Kanker (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 103(1), 61(2)(A) of BNS, 2023. 2. As per the prosecution’s case, complainant Ramsay Poya, son of deceased Somaru lodged a report at Police Station Amabeda stating therein that on 01.02.2025 at about 8:00 pm, his father went to sleep behind the house and on morning 02.02.2025 at about 6:30 am, he saw that his father was died and there is injury on head face and nose and one hammer was lying near the bed. On the basis of complaint, FIR was lodged and on the basis of doubt co- accused Ganesh Matlam was arrested and his memorandum statement was recorded in which he named the present applicants saying that all the accused persons had conspired for murder of the deceased, therefore, the present applicants were arrested and and on the basis of which offence has been registered against the present applicants. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case only on the basis of the memorandum statement of the main co-accused, Ganesh Matlam. There is no seizure from the present applicants, and also there is no memorandum from the present applicants. He also submits that the applicants are in jail since 04.02.2025, charge sheet has 3 been filed, but charges were not framed, and there is no likelihood of their case being decided in the near future; therefore, the present applicants may be released on bail. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application and submits that there are total 7 accused persons in this case, Sankay Poya, daughter-in- law of the deceased in her 161 statement dated 03.02.2025 stated that on 01.02.2025, the present applicants along with other co-accused persons including the main accused Ganesh Matlam near Seetla Mata Temple of the village, hatched a conspiracy to murder the deceased and thereafter executed at night. He also submits that charges have not been framed yet; therefore, at this stage, they may not be enlarged on bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that there is no memorandum of the applicants and also there is no seizure from the applicants, their name are also not mentioned in merg or FIR, the applicants are in custody since 04.02.2025, charge sheet has been filed, but trial is not commenced yet, and the trial is likely to take considerable time, therefore, at this stage, I am inclined to release the applicants on bail. 4 7. Accordingly, the application is allowed and it is directed that the applicants shall be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- each with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court. Applicants are directed to appear before the trial Court on each and every date to be given to them by the said Court till disposal of the trial. It is made clear that any observation made by this Court in this order shall not affect the trial of the case. 8. Office is directed to send 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