1 / 4 2025:CGHC:27649 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 4890 of 2025 • Kapil Kumar Gendle S/o Pyare Gendle Aged About 27 Years (As Per Challan), R/o Village Semariya, Police Station Bhatapara Gramin District Balodabazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh Present R/o Ward No. 6, Bhursuda, Police Station Tilda Neora District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus • State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Tilda Neora, District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Ghanshyam Kashyap, Advocate For Respondent-State : Mr. K.P. Gupta, Govt. Advocate along with Mr. T.S. Sahu, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge ORDER ON BOARD 25/06/2025 1. Applicant has filed this fifth bail application under Section 483 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 268/2023 registered at Police Station – Tilda Neora, District Raipur (C.G.) for offence punishable under Sections 302, 120B, 34 of the IPC. 2. Case of prosecution in brief is that on 09.07.2023 a dead body was found in Pandari pond of village Bhursuda. This came to knowledge of villagers and also to wife of deceased Ramavatar, upon which, she went to the pond and found that dead body was of her husband. Morgue was reported to the concerned police station, based upon which, crime was registered. During PAWAN KUMAR JHA Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR JHA 2 / 4 investigation based on the statement of wife of deceased namely Dukalhin and one Sagar Ratre, applicant was arrested. 3. Learned counsel for applicant submits that earlier the bail application of applicant was dismissed on merit vide order dated 06.05.2024. Thereafter the material witnesses have been examined namely Sagar Ratre, Rajkumar Ratre, Dheeraji Ratre and Amarnath Ratre, who are close relatives of the deceased Ramavatar Ratre but they have not supported the case of prosecution. He also contended that the seizure and memorandum witnesses have also been examined and they have also not supported case of prosecution. One of the witnesses, Dukahlin Bai widow of deceased, in her statement has stated that prior to finding of body of deceased there was quarrel between the accused person with the deceased in the night. However, she is not turning upon for recording her evidence. As per the ordersheet which is enclosed along with bail application at page no. 114 & 116 it is appearing that she thereafter is suffering from mental ailment and not in a position to give evidence before the Court. The person who went to the address for serving arrest warrant has mentioned this fact, which is recorded in the ordersheet of the trial court dated 18.02.2025 and thereafter the trial court in its ordersheet dated 28.04.2025 has also directed to produce medical certificate or relevant documents in this regard. As except Dukalhin Bai who could not be examined due to her suffering from mental ailment, all other witnesses have not supported case of prosecution. Applicant be enlarged on bail, he is in jail since 10.07.2023. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the submission made by learned counsel for the applicant and further submits that in the charge-sheet there is specific material against applicant connecting him in the aforementioned crime as just few hours before finding of body applicant quarreled with deceased Ramavatar in the night and in the morning the dead body was found floating in the pond. He submits that the copy of deposition as 3 / 4 referred by the counsel for appellant is subject matter of appreciation by the trial court. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 6. Taking into consideration facts and circumstances of the case, nature of allegation, submission made by learned counsel for the respective parties, period of pre-trial detention of applicant since 10.07.2023, without commenting anything on merits of the case, I am inclined to allow this application. 7. Accordingly, bail application is allowed. It is directed that the applicant shall be released on regular bail, upon furnishing a bail bond in the sum of ₹ 25,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court on the conditions that- (a) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (b) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through him counsel. In case of him absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (c) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (d) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 351 of BNSS. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant 4 / 4 is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. 8. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) pwn JUDGE