1 2025:CGHC:6263 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ORDER RESERVED ON 16.01.2025 ORDER DELIVERED ON 04.02.2025 MCRC No. 8832 of 2024 1 - Bramha Sahu S/o Shri Chandra Kumar Sahu Aged About 21 Years R/o Village Kona Ps Jarhagaon Tahsil And District - Mungeli (C.G.) ... Applicant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Sho City Kotwali Mungeli District - Mungeli (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant : Shri Dheerendra Pandey, Advocate For Respondent/State : Shri Pranjal Shukla, PL (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) C A V Order The applicant has filed this bail application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrrik Suraksha Sanhita for grant of regular bail as he is in custody in connection with Crime No. 332/2024 registered at police station City Kotwali, Mungeli, District Mungeli, (CG) ) for the offence punishable 2 under Sections 296,351(2),115(2) and 103(1) of the BNS Act, 2023. 2. Prosecution case in brief is that on 20.08.2024, report was lodged by mother of the deceased, Shakuntala Sahu alleging that marriage of her daughter Manisha Sahu was solemnized with the applicant Bramha Sahu prior to three months of the incident as per their custom. It is alleged that on the date of incident at about 7.30 p.m. her daughter informed her in the phone that her husband-the applicant was abusing and assaulting her and is threatening to kill her. On receiving the said information, she along with her brother Ravindra Sahu went to the house of her daughters matrimonial home where she come to know that her daughter was taken to CIMS, Bilaspur hospital for treatment and during treatment she died. 4. Contention of the counsel for the applicant is that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the crime in question. He further submits that as there was some hot talk between the applicant and the deceased and in a sudden quarrel, in a heat of passion, he assaulted the deceased and that he had no intention to cause her death. He submits that the applicant is in jail since 26.08.2024, the charge sheet has been filed and the trial is likely to take some time, he is ready and willing to comply with any of the conditions which may be imposed upon him and thus, it is submitted that the application be allowed and the applicant be released on bail. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent/State, on the other hand, has opposed the bail application and submits that on the basis of the memorandum statement of the applicant, he has been arrested. He has admitted that on the date of incident, on some trivial issue, quarrel took place between the applicant and his wife (deceased) as a result of which he committed maar-peeth with belt and strangulated her with dupatta and 3 caused her death. He submits that there were six injuries found on the body of the deceased and the death was homicidal in nature therefore the applicant may not be granted bail. 7. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. On due consideration of the rival submissions, from the records it prima facie appears that the applicant had assaulted and committed murder of his wife within three months of marriage on a trivial issue and in the postmortem report, there were six injuries found on the body of the deceased, therefore looking to the nature and gravity of the offence, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail. Accordingly, his bail application is rejected. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge