1 2025:CGHC:41894 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 6532 of 2025 Saroj Bai, W/o Sahebdas Kurre, aged about 42 years, R/o Village Prabhatola, Chounki Pondi, Thana Bodla, District Kabirdham, C.G. ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh, through P.S. Thana Bodla, District Kabirdham, C.G. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Ranjan Gupta and Mr. K K Kashyap, Advocates For Respondent/State : Mr. Vivek Sharma, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order on Board 19 / 08 / 2025 1. The accused/applicant has moved this first bail application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 for releasing her on regular bail during trial in connection with Crime No. 89/2025 registered at Police Station – Bodla, District – Kabirdham (C.G.) for offence punishable under Sections 103(1) & 34(1), of the BNS. SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Digitally signed by SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Date: 2025.08.22 15:17:59 +0530 2 2. As per the prosecution’s case, co-accused Sahebdas has lodged morgue before the concerned Police Station on 02.06.2023 about the death of Agamdas stating that when he returned back from agricultural field, he found the deceased Agamdas lying dead on cot and the blood was oozing out. Based on the memorandum, the police enquired the morgue report and thereafter, based on the memorandum statement of Sahebdas, he was arrested and thereafter his wife/present applicant Saroj Bai was also arrested on 11.06.2025. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. There is no connecting evidence against the applicant. She was arrested, only on the basis of the memorandum statement of her husband/co-accused Sahebdas and thereafter her memorandum statement was recorded. Except, the memorandum statement there is no evidence against her nor any seizure is made from the present applicant. Therefore, it is prayed that 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 from memorandum statements of both the accused, they have admitted and stated that the applicant has caught hold the legs of the 3 deceased while her husband/co-accused Sahebdas assaulted him by means of axe. Therefore, looking to the nature of offence, at this stage, the applicant may not be enlarged on bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of allegations, the applicants' detention period, submissions of both the Counsels and the fact that the applicant is a lady, without commenting on merits of the case, I am inclined to grant bail to the applicant. 7. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. It is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail on her furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court on the conditions that- (a) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he 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 him absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 of 4 Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (c) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his 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 him, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (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 him in accordance with law. 8. Office is directed to send certified copy of this order to the Trial Court concerned for information and necessary compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Shubham