1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 10341 of 2025 Khelan Alais Ghasiya Sahu S/o Late Kaliram Sahu Aged About 51 Years (Relative Is Wrongly Mentioned In Impugned Order), R/o Village Kongiyakala, Thana Parpodi, District Bemetara (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Office, P.S. Parpodi, District Bemetara (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Suresh Kumar Verma, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Anish Tiwari, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order On Board 12/01/2026 1. The applicant has preferred this 1st bail application under Section 483 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita Act 2023 for grant of regular bail as he is arrested in connection with crime No. 22/2025, registered at Police Station – Parpodi, District- Bemetara (C.G.) for offence punishable under Sections 103(1) and 238 of BNS. 2. The prosecution's case, in short, is that on 14.03.2025 at about 11 AM, Kuleshwar Sahu (now deceased), left his home around 11:00 AM on his motorcycle, stating that he was going to the pond for a bath due to a family dispute. On 18.03.2025, upon receiving information that Kuleshwar Sahu's body was found in suspicious circumstances in Sanju Chandel's wheat field in Kongiyakala Nawachak Khar village, a report was filed. A case of unnatural death was registered. Consequently, an investigation was initiated. During the investigation, SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Digitally signed by SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Date: 2026.01.13 11:08:18 +0530 2 the applicant/accused's involvement in the murder was established, and he was arrested on 22.03.2025. The applicant/accused is also charged with the offense of destroying evidence of the crime. Based on above, offence has been registered against the applicant. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the crime in question. He further submits that there was no relationship between the applicant and the deceased. Further, there is no direct evidence against the applicant. The FSL report is also negative. The applicant is in jail since 22.03.2025, out of 14 prosecution witnesses only 5 have been examined till date and they all have turned hostile and the trial is likely to take time to be finalized, therefore, it is prayed that the applicant may be enlarged on bail. 4. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the bail application and submits that there was a seizure of blood stained shirt and a sickle from the applicant. Hence, looking to the nature of offence, the applicant may not be released on bail. 5. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, evidence collected by the prosecution, detention period of the applicant and the fact that the trial is likely to take time to be finalized, without commenting on merits of the case, I am inclined to release the applicant on bail. 7. Accordingly, the bail application is Allowed. 8. It is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail on executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 20,000/- with one solvent surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for his appearance before the said Court as and when directed. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Shubham