1 2025:CGHC:39124 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 6169 of 2025 Dilesh Jangde S/o Khilavan Jangade Aged About 28 Years 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 (Name Of The Applicant Is Wrongly Mention In Rejection Order Dated 03-07-2025) --- Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station - Tilda Neora, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Ghanshyam Kashyap, Advocates For Respondent-State : Mr. Ajit Singh, Govt. Advocate with Mr. Triveni Shankar Sahu, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge ORDER ON BOARD 06/08/2025 1. Applicant has filed this first 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, 120-B, 34 of the Indian Penal Code. BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Digitally signed by BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Date: 2025.08.07 15:43:33 +0530 2 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 investigation based on the statement of wife of deceased namely Dukalhin and applicant along with other co-accused were arrested. 3. Learned counsel for applicant submits that co-accused Kapil Kumar Gendle was enlarged on bail in M.Cr.C. No.4890 of 2025 vide order dated 25.06.2025. The allegation against the applicant is almost same as against co-accused Kapil Kumar Gendle. While considering the bail application filed by co-accused Kapil Kumar Gendle, this Court considered that almost all the material witnesses have been examined before the trial Court, they have not supported the case of the prosecution except Dukalhin Bai, widow of deceased, who is yet to be examined. He also contended that as per report of the police officials, who went to serve the warrant upon Dukalhin Bai reported that witness Dukalhin Bai is suffering with some mental ailment and considering that fact, granted bail to co-accused. Case of the applicant is also on similar footing, therefore, he may also be enlarged on bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the submission made by learned counsel for the applicant, however, he do not dispute the submission of learned counsel for the applicant that this Court enlarged co-accused Kapil Kumar Gendle on bail considering that only 3 material witness Dukalhin Bai remaining to be examined is not mentally fit as per report. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of allegation, submission of learned counsel for respective parties and pretrial 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 she 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 her absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against her under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (c) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure her 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 her, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. 4 (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 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 her 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) JUDGE Balram