1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 6124 of 2025 1 - Maksud Ansari S/o Mo. Samim Aged About 22 Years R/o Anandpur, P.S.- Ram- chandrpur, District- Balrampur- Ramanujganj (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through P.S.- Ramchandrapur, District- Balrampur- Ra- manujganj (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant : Shri Navneet Kumar Yadav, Advocate. For Respondent : Shri Sabyasachi Choubey, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J Order on Board 04.09.2025 1. This is first bail application seeking grant of bail to the Applicant who is in jail since 07.03.2024 in connection with Crime No.04/2024 registered at Police Station Ramchandrapur, District Balrampur Ramanujganj for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 201, 120-B of IPC and Section 25 & 27 of Arms Act. 2. The case of prosecution is that, in the intervening night of 5-6.03.2024 the deceased Jamshed Ansari was murdered. Merg was intimated by his father on 06.03.2024. In the postmortem, head injury and cut in the Neck was found which was cause of death. On being interrogation and investigation, the applicant was arrested and on his memorandum one 2 knife was seized from him. Along with applicant, two other co-accused persons were also arrested and charge sheet has been filed. 3. Learned Counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant is in- nocent and has been falsely implicated in the offence. There is no eye- witness to the incident. To connect the applicant with the offence in question, there is no evidence except his memorandum statement. No motive has been proved against the applicant. Based on his memoran- dum statement a Knife was seized from him but no bloodstains were found in the said Knife. Out of 27 cited witnesses only 7 witnesses have been examined before the trial court and there is every possibility of delay in trial. The applicant is in jail since 07.03.2024 and therefore he may be enlarged on bail. 4. On the other hand the counsel for the State opposes the bail applica- tion and would submit that it comes in the case diary that the main ac- cused Ashraf hired two other co-accused persons including the present applicant on the suspicion that the deceased was having an affair with his wife and on his instance the applicant along with two other co-ac- cused persons have committed murder of the deceased. It also comes that the main accused Ashraf has committed murder of the deceased by Knife whereas the Knife was seized from the present applicant. The offence is of conspiracy committing murder and causing disappearance of the evidence and the conspiracy can be considered by the conduct of the applicant also. The trial is in progress and 7 witnesses have been examined. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled for bail. 5. Considering the submissions made by the counsel for the parties, con- sidering the nature of allegation and material collected during investiga- tion as well as the gravity of offence, the fact that weapon of offence 3 i.e. Knife has been seized from the present applicant, the evidence with respect to motive; and also considering the fact that trial of the case is in advance stage and 7 witnesses have already been examined till date, I do not find any good ground to release the applicant on bail. 6. Accordingly, the bail application stands dismissed at motion stage. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge inder