1 2025:CGHC:42954 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 6011 of 2025 Nohar Prasad Dansena S/o Motilal Dansena Aged About 35 Years R/o- Bade Domarpali P.S. And Tehsil- Kharsiya District- Raigarh (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through- P.S.- Kharsiya District- Raigarh (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Peyush Patnaik, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, Adv. For Respondent/State : Ms. Pragya Shrivastava, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order On Board 25/08/2025 1. The applicant has preferred this 1st bail application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 for grant of regular bail as he is arrested in connection with crime No. 265/2025, registered at Police Station – Kharsiya, District- Raigarh (C.G.) for offence punishable under Section 103(1) of BNS. 2. The prosecution's case, in short is that the complainant, Sunil Kumar Rathiya, lodged a written report at Police Station Kharsia on 09.05.2025 to the effect that on the morning of 07.05.2025, he had gone to drop his younger brother’s wife, Teejmati, to village Kunkuni. At about 8:00–8:30 p.m., Surit Kumar Rathiya alleged that his wife had an illicit relationship with Nohar Prasad Dansena, and thereupon, an SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Digitally signed by SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Date: 2025.08.26 13:08:56 +0530 2 altercation took place between Surit Kumar Rathiya and Nohar Prasad Dansena involving abuse and pushing. In the course of the quarrel, Nohar Prasad Danseena, in a fit of anger, kicked Surit Kumar Rathiya in the abdomen, causing him to fall to the ground. He was thereafter taken home where domestic treatment was being provided. On 08.05.2025, at about 7:00–8:00 p.m., when the condition of Surit Kumar Rathiya deteriorated, he was being taken for treatment to the Medical Hospital, Raigarh, but he succumbed on the way. On the basis of said written report, offence has been registered against the applicant. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the crime in question. There is nothing on record against the applicant. There is no external injury found on the body of the deceased and he died due to cardio respiratory. He further submits that the applicant is in jail since 09.05.2025, there are total 20 prosecution witnesses in this case 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 the incident was witnessed by wife of the deceased and there are 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, evidence collected by the prosecution against the applicant and the nature of offence, without further commenting on merits of the case, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail. 7. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Shubham