1 2025:CGHC:59573 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 9799 of 2025 • Smt. Anita Sahu W/o Chandraprakash Sahu Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Talvapara, P.S. And Tehsil - Baikunthpur, District - Koriya, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant. versus • State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Of Baikunthpur, District - Koriya (C.G.) --- Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Shashwat Gupta, Advocate For Respondent/State : Ms. Sunita Manikpuri, GA. Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 08/12/2025 1. This is first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 for grant of regular bail to applicant, who has been arrested in connection with Crime No.306/2025, registered at PS -Baikunthpur, District - Koriya (C.G.), for commission of offence punishable under Sections 103(1), 332(A) of the BNS. 2. According to the case diary, complainant -Anuj Sahu reported death of his wife (Parvati) to the Baikunthpur Police Station, a case 2 number 106/2025 was registered. During the investigation, dead body of the deceased was examined and postmortem report indicated the possibility of the deceased's death being homicidal. On the basis of investigation, case number 306/2025 under Sections 103(1) and 332(A) of the BNS registered against the accused/present applicant and he has been arrested on 08.09.2025. During investigation, it was also found that the deceased Parvati was Surajlal Sahu's daughter from his second wife (Narbadiya). Surajlal had no children from his first wife (Sukhman). Narbadiya and Sukhman had chosen Parvati's husband (Anuj Sahu) as their son-in-law & for their care, however, Surajlal has chosen his brother Dhanukdhari's son, Chandraprakash and his wife (Anita Sahu)/present applicant for their care. Due to the apprehension of the applicant/accused Anita Sahu being evicted from the property as Sukhman and Narbadiya keeping Parvati's husband Anuj Sahu as son-in-law and due to ill will towards the deceased Parvati, on 23.08.2025, Anita and Chandraprakash made an agreement between the deceased Parvati's in-laws to take care of Sukhman and cultivate the land on such the dispute arose between the parties. Subsequently, on 01.09.2025, the applicant/accused Anita Sahu, driven by greed for property, strangulated the Parvati to death with a stole (scarf). 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in this case, he has not committed any offence as alleged against him. Prosecution has failed to prove the ingredients 3 of the charges/offence against the applicant. There is no direct evidence linking the applicant in the alleged offence, case against her is based on circumstantial uncorroborated evidence. There is no any other criminal antecedent against the applicant. Applicant is in jail since 08.09.2025, conclusion of trial may take some time, hence, applicant may be released on bail. 4. Per contra, learned State Counsel opposing the bail application of the applicant and submits that during the investigation, on 08.09.2025, the printed stole (scarf/dupatta) used in commission in crime was seized from the possession of applicant/accused on the basis of her memorandum. On the date of incident, applicant was present on the post and prima facie it is visible that the applicant/accused has sufficient reason/motive to murder the deceased Parvati. Hence, applicant may not be released on bail. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. Pursuant to order of this Court, victim appeared before this Court by virtual mode from the concerned DLSA and she raised objection in granting bail to the applicant. 7. Considering facts of the case, nature of allegations, submissions of learned counsel for the parties, particularly the submission that the printed stole (scarf/dupatta) used in commission in crime has been seized from the possession of applicant/accused on the basis of her memorandum, further considering the post-mortem report wherein it is mentioned that death of deceased is homicidal in nature, I am not inclined to allow this bail application. 4 8. Accordingly, bail application is hereby rejected/dismissed. However, trial Court concerned is directed to conclude the trial, expeditiously, as soon as possible, if there is no any legal impediment. Certified copy as per rules. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge J/-