1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 7055 of 2025 Basant Sahu S/o Ledga Ram Sahu Aged About 58 Years R/o Village Karelibadi, Out Post Karelibadi, Police Station Magarlod, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh through the Station House Officer, Police of Out Post Karelibadi, Police Station Magarlod, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For the Applicant : Mr. Aditya Khare, Advocate, on behalf of Mr. Anil Gulati, Advocate For the State : Mr. H.A.P.S. Bhatia, Panel Lawyer. (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Order on Board 04.09.2025 1. This is second bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant in Crime No. 09/2025 registered at Out Post Karelibadi through P.S. Magarlod, Distt. Dhamtari (C.G) for the offence under Sections 115(2), 296, 351(2), 109, 103, 332(A) of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita 2023. 2 2. The first bail application has been dismissed by order dated 09.06.2025 passed in MCRC No.3579 of 2025 on the ground that the charge has not been framed. 3. The prosecution story in brief is that the FIR was lodged by Bisu Ram Sahu against the applicant and Giteswar Sahu alleging that on 20.01.2025 at about 09.00 a.m., Purushottam Sahu received a phone call whereby he came to know that his daughter Khemin Sahu had been assaulted by her father-in-law, the present applicant and co-accused Giteshwar, the brother-in-law . Subsequently she was taken to hospital and died on 25.01.2025. On the basis of the said information, offence was registered against the applicant and other accused persons. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant is father in law of the deceased Khemin and the main allegations are against Giteshwar. He further submits the eye witness P.W.2 Ku. Vibha Sahu who is daughter of deceased has not stated anything against the present applicant, thereby she did not support the prosecution case against him. He submits that except P.W.2 Ku. Vibha, no other eye witnesses are available. It is also submitted that no seizure was made from the present applicant and he has been falsely inculpated in this case. He submits that the applicant is in jail since 27.01.2025 and till date out of a total 21 witnesses, only 2 have been examined and there is no immediate possibility of disposal of case, therefore, the applicant may be enlarged on bail. 5. Per contra, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the named FIR has been filed. 3 6. Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and looking to the over all material available on record and the fact that the trial is likely to take time as only two witnesses have been examined till date out of a total 21 witnesses, without observing anything on merits of the case, I am inclined to release the applicant on regular bail at this stage. 7. Accordingly, this second bail application is allowed and the applicant is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the said Court as and when directed. Cc as per rules. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Rao