1 2025:CGHC:54341 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRC No. 8774 of 2025 Basant Sidar S/o Laxmiprasad Sidar Aged About 52 Years R/o Village- Sapnai, Police Station - Chakradharnagar, Tahsil And District- Raigarh (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through - S.H.O. Of Police Station Chakradharnagar, Tahsil And District- Raigarh (C.G.) ---- Respondent (Cause title is taken from the CIS) ___________________________________________________________ For Applicant : Mr. Abhishek Saraf, Advocate For State-Respondent : Mr. Sanjeev Pandey, Dy. AG ___________________________________________________________ Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 07/11/2025 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 for grant of regular bail. The applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No.243/2025 registered at VASANT KUMAR Digitally signed by VASANT KUMAR Date: 2025.11.10 10:58:46 +0530 2 Police Station Chakradharnagar, Tahsil & District Raigarh (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 103(1) of BNS. 2. The prosecution story in brief is that on 04-06-2024, younger brother of the deceased namely Chain Singh lodged report against the applicant and applicant stated in his memorandum statement that, he is a farmer and daily wager laborer, he live with his wife, Gendmati, and having three children, he owned three acres of land. he cultivate peanuts during the summer and rice during the rainy season. On 03-06-2025, he had kept about 01 sack of peanuts covered with string in the backyard of his house. On the same day, about 25 kg of peanuts were missing from the sack, regarding which he was inquiring in the village Sapnai, then Anna Dhanwar who has a grocery shop, told me that Chaitan Dhanwar/deceased had sold peanuts to me, then he recognized his peanuts and in anger went to the house of the village sarpanch Madan Chauhan and told him that Chaitan Dhanwar has stolen the peanuts from his backyard, he took the sarpanch along with him to deceased's house, Chaitan Dhanwar was sitting in his house with his parents, then I asked Chaitan Dhanwar whether he had kept my peanuts, and slapped him three-four times and was dragging him out of his house saying come to whom have you sold it, then his parents intervened and on being explained by the Sarpanch, Madan Chauhan also left from there. He again took bamboo stick 3 and went to his house and assault Chaitan Dhanwar/deceased with it five to six times. The said stick was seized outside in open place having no blood stains in it. in post marterm report doctor clearly mentioned that, death was not homicidal since it was opined that, death cause due to "Asphyxia as a result of hanging" which is not supporting the prosecution story at all. On the basis of such FIR, the offences under Sections 103(1), 238, of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 have been registered against applicant, he is in jail since 04-06-2025 and charge sheet has been filed in the case. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. He further contended that no offence of 103(1) of BNS is made out against the applicant because in post morterm report doctor clearly mentioned that, death was not homicidal since it was opined that, death cause due to "Asphyxia as a result of hanging" which is not supporting the prosecution story at all. The incident was occurred only on the dispute that as to why the deceased stolen the peanuts of the applicant from the sack and sold the same to the nearby grocery shop, and on that basis with anger applicant assaulted through bamboo stick and eventually deceased was died he was not intent to commit the murder of the deceased which is completely against the medical evidences available on charge sheet. He further contended that nobody seen the incident and only on the weak 4 type of circumstantial evidences the entire case is based upon, memorandum and seizure from the applicant and seizure of bamboo stick from the open place not inside the house of the applicant, and there is no motive and intention proved by the prosecution in the entire charge sheet, thus no case of murder is made out against the applicant. Therefore he may be enlarged on bail. Looking to the prosecution story itself reveals the fact that, the ingredients of the Section 103(1) of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita 2023 are not at all attracted against the applicant in the case. Medical evidences whatsoever available on records are not sufficient to prove the case beyond the reasonable doubt against the applicant, there is no FSL and MLC is also not supporting the prosecution. The applicant is in jail since 04.06.2025. Also, the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application and contended that there are three eye witnesses of the incident and as per the post mortem report, 5-6 severe injuries are found on the body of the deceased, hence, applicant is not entitled for grant of bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 5 6. Considering the facts & circumstances of the case, nature & gravity of the offence, material available in the case dairy, there are three eye witnesses of the incident, therefore, this Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant on regular bail. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant involved in Crime No.243/2025 registered at Police Station Chakradharnagar, Tahsil & District Raigarh (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 103(1) of BNS, is rejected. 8. However, this Court hopes and trust that the trial Court shall make an earnest endeavour to conclude the trial in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Vasant