1 2025:CGHC:38397 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 4977 of 2025 1 - Abhishek Markam S/o Sheru Markam Aged About 24 Years At - Sikola Bhatha, Ward No. 15, Durg, P.S. Mohan Nagar, District Durg (C.G.) ... Applicant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Durg, (Kotwali), District Durg (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Lukesh Kumar Mishra, Adv. through V.C. For Respondent/State : Ms. Priya Sharma, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board 04 / 08 / 2025 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. 421/2024 registered at Police Station – Durg (Kotwali), District – Durg (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2025.08.05 10:29:26 +0530 2 Sections 109, 61(2), 3(5), 103, 190, 191(2), 191(3) of BNS and Sections 25 & 27 of Arms Act. 2. As per the prosecution’s case, on 18.08.2024, complainant Lavisha Sharma lodged an oral complaint stating therein that on the date of the incident i.e. 18.08.2024, at about 7 pm, the prime accused, Sattu Markam along with his companion, assaulted the deceased Akash Sharma with a sharp object, due to which he sustained injuries. Based on such a complaint, offence has been registered. Later on, the deceased was taken to the hospital, but he succumbed to his injuries; therefore, other offences were also added. Based on the memorandum of the co-accused, Sattu Markam, the present applicant has also been made an accused, and an offence has been registered against the present applicant as well. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that the applicant was neither name in the FIR, nor was name in the police statement of the witnesses and his name appeared for the first time in the memorandum of the prime accused and only on the basis of the memorandum, which is not admissible in view of Section 30 of the Evidence Act, the applicant was arrested and his clothes were recovered at his instance. He next 3 submits that nothing incriminating has been seized or recovered from the possession of the present applicant. The deceased himself was a hardcore and habitual criminal, and the prime witnesses of the case, who are his brothers, are also habitual criminals. He places reliance on the decision of this Court in the matter of Karan @ Dadu Dewar vs. State of C.G. and submits that in that matter the accused has been granted bail by the coordinate Bench of this Court in MCRC No. 5229/2025 on 07.07.2025 in the same set of facts. The applicant is in jail since 20.08.2024, 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 there are 27 witnesses, including 4 eyewitnesses in this case, out of which only one witness, namely Lavisha Sharma, has been examined till date, and many important witnesses have remained to be examined. The applicant did a heinous crime with the co-accused; 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. 4 6. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, particularly looking to the material available on record, the evidence collected by the prosecution against the applicant and the nature of crime, 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, considering the fact that the applicant is in jail since 20.08.2024 and only 1 witness out of 27 witnesses has been examined till date, it is an exceptional case, the concerned trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and to ensure that the trial is concluded as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period 5 months from today. 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