1 / 2 2025:CGHC:803 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 9086 of 2024 1 - Piyush Jha S/o Late Sanjay Jha Aged About 31 Years R/o Sapphire Green Phase 2, H.No. 40, Baroda, P.S. Vidhan Sabha Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Vidhan Sabha Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Zaid Ali, Advocate For State : Ms. Pragya Shrivastava, Dy. GA (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board 06/01/2025 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Shuraksha Sanhita for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested on 26/02/2024 in connection with Crime No. 115/2024, registered at Police Station Vidhan Sabha, District Raipur (CG) for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and Sections 25 (1- [k) (d) and 27 (3) of the Arms Act. 2. As per the prosecution case the deceased and the applicant are the real brothers and sons of the complainant. They were running a business of Drone Supply. They had rented the house of one Arvind singh for a rent of Rs.30,000/- per month. Some dispute used to occur in between the ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA Date: 2025.01.07 17:39:57 +0530 2 / 2 brothers i.e. the applicant and the deceased. On 25/02/2024 the applicant made a phone call to the complainant and informed that the deceased Parag is no more and asked her to reach to the said rented house and when she was in the way, the accused made a video call to the complainant and stated that see Parag has died and he has killed him. Thereafter, the complainant along with his care taker reached to the spot and she saw that her son was died. Thereafter, on the basis of the report, the FIR was registered against the present applicant. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that there is no offence against the applicant and he has been falsely implicated he has not committed any offence as alleged against him. There is no eye witness of this case. He would further submit that the applicant is in jail since 26/02/2024 and the trial may take some more time, therefore, the applicant may be released on bail. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bail. 5. I have learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. Considering the fact that 05 witnesses in this case have been examined and further considering the statement of the complainant/mother that the accused has made an extra judicial confession after commission of crime, therefore, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail. 6. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected. However, learned trial Court is directed to expedite the trial. SD/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE ashu