1 2025:CGHC:35574 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 5326 of 2025 Arpit Sharma S/o Devdatta Sharma Aged About 24 Years R/o Dipopara, Sarid Nagar Dhamtari, Police Station Kotwali, District Dhamtari C.G. ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Office, Plice Of Plice Station Mana Camp Raipur, District Raipur C.G. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Jitendra Shukla, Adv. For Respondent/State : Ms. Sunita Manikpuri, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order On Board 23/07/2025 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. 175/2024, registered at Police Station – Mana Camp Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) for offence punishable under Sections 307, 302 & 201 of IPC. 2. The prosecution's case, in short, is that on 30.03.2024 at around 8:14 night, High-tech Parking Yard Dumartarai, under the jurisdiction of police station Mana Camp (Raipur), the applicant assaulted Narjru Khan with a hammer due to which he died. Based on above, offence has been registered against the applicant. During course of investigation, on the basis of his memorandum statement, blood stained hammer has been seized from the applicant. SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Digitally signed by SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Date: 2025.07.29 13:58:14 +0530 2 3. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is mentally ill and has been undergoing treatment since 2022. It is further submitted that although an application was filed to have the applicant medically examined, it was rejected by the trial court, and no application was moved to stay the trial. He further submits that the applicant is in jail since 31.03.2024, charge-sheet has been filed and the trial is likely to take 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 there is sufficient evidence available on record against the applicant, therefore, looking to the nature of offence, 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, the evidence collected by the prosecution and the fact that the accused has not filed any application before the trial Court to this effect that the accused is a mentally ill person who is not able to understand the trial proceedings, therefore the trial may be stayed, coupled with the nature of the offense and the fact that the medical documents submitted by the applicant are insufficient to warrant bail at this stage, without commenting further on the merits, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail. 7. Accordingly, the bail application is Rejected. 8. Prosecution witnesses Dheeraj Sharma (PW-1) and Azad Patre (PW-3) have stated that the mental condition of applicant Arpit Sharma is not good and he is undergoing treatment for mental illness for the last 6-7 years. Therefore, the trial Court is directed that before proceeding with the trial to examine whether the accused is in a position to understand the trial proceeding or not and then proceed further accordingly in accordance with law. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Shubham