1 2025:CGHC:3330 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 544 of 2025 1 - Manoj Singh S/o Late Rajendra Singh Aged About 23 Years Caste Gond Resident Of Pahadgaon Ps Jainagar District Surajpur Chhattisgarh ...Applicant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House OfÏcer, Police Station Jainagar, District Surajpur (Chhattisgarh) Non-Applicant For Applicants : Mr. Hariom Rai along with Mr. Vikas Pradhan, Advocate For-Non-applicant : Ms. Pragya Shrivastava, Dy. G.A. Hon’ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 20.01.2025 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. in connection with Crime No. 76/2024, registered at Police Station Jainagar, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh for the offences punishable under Section 302, 201 & 506 of the IPC. Digitally signed by JYOTI JHA Date: 2025.01.22 14:58:04 +0530 2 2. The prosecution story in brief, is that, son of the deceased has made a written complaint before the concerned Police Station Jainagar regarding the scuffle has been arosen and when the present applicant return to his home at about 7-8 pm, he asked to his father regarding bull and father has informed that he sell out the bull and due to that reason the present applicant in a heat of movement assaulted his father with the iron rod and due to that the deceased has been died in the hospital. On the basis of report, the applicant has been arrested by police of Police Station Jainagar, District Surajpur (C.G.) on 08.04.2024 for alleged offences punishable under Section 302, 201, 506 of IPC. 3. It was argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the injury sustained by the deceased is due to the road accident occurred because of his poor eyesight and when he came to his house and due to the head injury, he became unconscious and he was taken to hospital by the present applicant and thereafter he died. The complainant who is the step brother of the present applicant, has implicated the present applicant because of the land dispute between them. He further submits that the prosecution has not collected any documents, which may show involvement of applicant in commission of assault made by him. The applicant is in jail since 08.04.2024. Though, the trial is in progress, till date, the 3 same has not been concluded, thus he prays that the present applicant may be released on bail. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application and submits that there is ample evidence on record to connect the applicant with commission of the offence. Further charge-sheet has been filed against the applicant and two witnesses have already been examined. The present applicant assaulted the deceased with iron rod and due to which he died. For which, the applicant has not given any plausible explanation, therefore, his bail application is liable to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary produced by the learned counsel for the State. 6. Considering the nature and gravity of offence and further considering the fact the present applicant assaulted the deceased with iron rod and due to which he died and further charge-sheet has already been filed and two witnesses have already been examined, without any observation on the merits, at this stage role played by the applicant cannot be distinguished, as it would depend after all the witnesses are meticulously examined therefore, the aforesaid bail application of applicant is rejected. 4 7. However, this Court hope and trust that the trial Court shall make an earnest endeavour to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible, if there is no legal impediment. 8. Office is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Jyoti