1 2025:CGHC:38399 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 5669 of 2025 1 - Sahil Gendre S/o Late Uttara Gendre Aged About 22 Years R/o Mission Parsabhader, Police Station City Kotwali Baloda Bazar, District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Applicant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station City Kotwali Baloda Bazar, Dist. Baloda Bazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Ravindra Singh Chhabra, Adv. & Ms. Indrapreet Kaur Chhabra, Adv. For Respondent/State : Mr. Karan Baharani, P.L. For Complainant : Mr. Gaurav Singhal, Advocate. 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. 210/2025 registered at Police Station – City Kotwali, Baloda Bazar, District – Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2025.08.05 10:29:27 +0530 2 for the offence punishable under Sections 103(1), 3(5) of BNS and Section 25 & 27 of Arms Act. 2. As per the prosecution’s case, on 04.03.2025 a report was lodged by Harshit Mishra, brother of the deceased, to the effect that his brother Gyanendra Mishra (deceased) had gone outside on his scooter at about 9:30 pm, and when he did not come till late night at 1 pm, the complainant made a phone call to him about his return on which Gyanendra respondent to return home and disconnected the phone. Again when the complainant made a phone call, at 2:05 am, someone else had informed him on Gyanendra’s mobile that Gyanendra had met with an accident. On that information, the complainant rushed to the place where Gyanendra was lying bleeding on the road and three people were also there including the present applicant and they informed about Gyanendra’s argument with someone else. When the complainant asked Gyanendra, hel told that some one had hit him with sharp edged object and the injures were caused on the thigh of the right leg. The deceased became unconscious and was brought to a private hospital where he died after medical examination. 3. Learned counsels for the applicant submit that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. They further submit that the memorandum of the accused 3 is flawed in itself, as according to the memorandum, the weapon and other articles were already in possession of the police while the memorandum was taken. There are two seizure reports according to which a lower, a t-shirt and a knife were seized at 13:05, and a motorcycle and a mobile phone were seized at 13:50; however, arrest was made at 15:00 from the residence. They further submit that according to the statement of Harshit Mishra, brother of the deceased, who gave merg intimation, some persons were present with the deceased at the place of incident when he reached there, but the statements of the persons present at the place of occurrence have not been taken by the police. They also submit that co-accused Oman Maris Peter has already been granted bail by this Court in MCRC No. 3025/2025 on 09.06.2025 on the basis that there is no direct evidence against the co-accused and the name of the co-accused is not mentioned in the FIR or in statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. and the same is the case of the present applicant. The applicant is in jail since 05.03.2025, 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 is a seizure of 4 knife from the present applicant, in which human blood was found. He further submits that in the Postmortem report the nature of death is homicidal, the applicant has four criminal antecedents out of which one criminal case is for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC and the co-accused has been granted bail by this Court on the basis that no seizure has been made from the co-accused; therefore, at this stage, he may not be enlarged on bail. 5. Learned counsel for the complainant alos opposes the bail application. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. 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. 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