1 2025:CGHC:38798 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 5633 of 2025 1 - Om Prakash Chandrakar S/o Shravan Chandrakar, Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Bharewapara, Thana And Teh. Pandariya District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Though, Station House Officer, Pandariya, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Awadh Tripathi, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Ms. Sunita Manikpuri, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board 05 / 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. 102/2025 registered at Police Station – Pandariya, District – Kabirdham (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 296, 115(2), 351(3), 3(5), 103 of BNS, 2023. Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2025.08.06 10:19:35 +0530 2 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 28/05/2025, when the complainant Laxminarayan, his father Chintaram Yadav, nephew Birendra alias Dulwara (deceased) and Surendra Yadav were returning on a motorcycle after visiting the Gaurakapa temple and the fair. At around 07:30 pm, when they reached near Bhadrali turn, the co- accused Falit Yadav and Mukesh Yadav, residents of Bharewapara, coming on a motorcycle, started cutting the motorcycle of the complainant from the front. Then Surendra Yadav objected, on which the accused/applicant and other co-accused abused and threatened to kill and beat them with sticks. In this incident, Laxminarayan Yadav and Chintaram Yadav got injured, while Birendra alias Dulwara died due to serious injury. On the information of this incident given by Deepak Yadav, the police registered the first information report under Crime No. 102/2025. When Janikram informed about the death of Birendra alias Dularwa, a Dehati Merg information was registered. The body was examined, and later, the crime of murder was added. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet has been filed. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that the name of the applicant is not 3 clearly mentioned in the FIR lodged on 28/05/2025. It is also not mentioned that other persons were involved in the incident along with the accused named in the FIR. According to the prosecution's case, the incident is said to have taken place under sudden provocation. The applicant has no involvement in the incident. He also submits that the applicant is in jail since 07.06.2025, he has no criminal antecedents, charge sheet has been filed, and the trial is likely to take considerable time. Therefore, the applicant may be released on bail. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application and submits that in this case, the name of the applicant has also come up in the police statements of injured Laxminarayan Yadav, Chintaram Yadav, spot witness Deepak Yadav, Surendra Yadav and the statement recorded under Section 183 of BNSS, 2023 regarding his involvement in the incident. On the basis of the memorandum statement of the applicant, the stick used in the incident has been seized from him. There are 04 eyewitnesses in this case. The trial is not commenced yet. There is sufficient evidence against the applicant. 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 facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the evidence collected by the police against the applicant on the basis of a thorough investigation, and finding that statements of eyewitnesses are available against the applicant, in which his name is mentioned with his involvement in the incident. Also, on the basis of the memorandum statement of the applicant, the stick used in the incident has also been seized, which prima facie strengthens the case of the prosecution, further considering the fact that trial is not commenced yet, at this stage, without commenting on merits of the case, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail. Accordingly, the bail application filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023, is rejected. 7. 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