1 / 3 2025:CGHC:40115 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 6025 of 2025 • Mukesh Jangde S/o Khilavan Jangade Aged About 25 Years (As Per Chargesheet), R/o- Village Semariya, Police Station- Bhatapara Gramin District Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.), Present R/o Ward No.6, Bhursuda, Police Station- Tilda Neora, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus • State of Chhattisgarh through Police Station- Tilda Neora, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Virendra Kashyap, Advocate For Respondent-State : Mr. Triveni Shankar Sahu, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge ORDER ON BOARD 11/08/2025 1. Applicant has filed this first bail application under Section 483 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 268/2023 registered at Police Station – Tilda Neora, District Raipur (C.G.) for offence punishable under Sections 302, 120B, 34 of IPC. 2. Case of prosecution in brief is that on 09.07.2023 a dead body was found in Pandari pond of village Bhursuda. This came to knowledge of villagers and also to wife of deceased Ramavatar, upon which, she went to the pond and found that dead body was of her husband. Morgue was reported to the concerned police station, based upon which, crime was registered. During PAWAN KUMAR JHA Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR JHA 2 / 3 investigation based on the statement of wife of deceased namely Dukalhin and applicant along with other co-accused were arrested. 3. Learned counsel for applicant submits that co-accused Kapil Kumar Gendle was enlarged on bail in M.Cr.C. No.4890 of 2025 vide order dated 25.06.2025 and Dilesh Jangde in M.Cr.C. No. 6169 of 2025. The allegation against the applicant is almost same as against co-accused Kapil Kumar Gendle. While considering the bail application filed by co-accused Kapil Kumar Gendle and Dilesh Jangde, this Court considered that almost all the material witnesses have been examined before the trial Court, they have not supported the case of the prosecution except Dukalhin Bai, widow of deceased, who is yet to be examined. He also contended that as per report of the police officials, who went to serve the warrant upon Dukalhin Bai reported that witness Dukalhin Bai is suffering with some mental ailment and considering that fact, granted bail to co-accused. Case of the applicant is also on similar footing, therefore, he may also be enlarged on bail. It is also contended that the trial court has directed the SHO, P.S. Tilda Neora to get Dukalhin Bai (prosecution witness) examined from the doctor with regard to report of her suffering with mental ailment, however, the SHO was not produced the report till 30.06.2025. He submits that as per his information, even today the report was not placed before the trial Court. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the submission made by learned counsel for the applicant, however, he does not dispute the submission of learned counsel for the applicant that this Court enlarged co- accused Kapil Kumar Gendle and Dilesh Jangde on bail considering that only material witness Dukalhin Bai remaining to be examined is not mentally fit as per report. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 3 / 3 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of allegation, submission of learned counsel for respective parties and pre-trial detention of applicant since 10.07.2023, without commenting anything on merits of the case, I am inclined to allow this application. 7. Accordingly, bail application is allowed. It is directed that the applicant shall be released on regular bail, upon furnishing a bail bond in the sum of ₹ 25,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court on the conditions that- (a) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (b) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through him counsel. In case of him absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (c) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (d) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 351 of BNSS. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. 8. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) pwn JUDGE