1 2025:CGHC:55056 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 9050 of 2025  Satya Prakash Sahu S/o Bhai Ram Sahu Aged About 35 Years R/o Ram Nagar, Ward No. 26, Kawardha, Police Station Kawardha, District- Kabirdham (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus  State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House O/cer, Police Station Kawardha, District- Kabirdham (C.G.) ---Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Virendra Verma, Advocate. For-Non-applicant : Ms. Sunita Manikpuri, Dy. G.A. Hon’ble Shri Arvind Kumar Vema, Judge Order on Board 12/11/2025 1. This is the 6rst bail application 6led under Section 483 of the B.N.S.S. for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 80/2017 registered at Police Station Kawardha, District Kabirdham (C.G.), for the o<ence punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of Indian Penal Code. 2. The allegation against the present applicant as per the prosecution case is that, the informant Baldau Chandravanshi lodged a report at Police Station Kawardha stating that he was informed by his neighbors over the phone that Dr. Ganesh Kumar Suryavanshi and his wife Dr. Usha Suryavanshi were lying dead in the courtyard of their residential house. Upon receiving the information, the informant climbed onto the roof of Maharaj's house, adjacent to Dr. Suryavanshi's residence, and saw the doctor couple lying dead in the courtyard of their house with 2 blood oozing from their heads. Based on this information, Marg No. 0/2017 was registered at the spot and the matter was taken up for marg enquiry. The post-mortem of the deceased persons bodies was conducted and upon returning to Police Station Kawardha, Marg Nos. 21/2017 and 22/2017 were registered. Upon 6nding that the death of the deceased Dr. Ganesh Kumar Suryavanshi and the deceased Dr. Usha Suryavanshi was caused by severe injuries inCicted on their heads with a heavy and solid object by an unknown person, First Information Report bearing Crime No. 80/2017 was registered under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against unknown person and the case was taken up for investigation. During the investigation of the case, statements of the deceased persons' family members, the woman who previously worked at the incident site, and the suspect Satya Prakash were recorded. Based on these, the former domestic help of the doctor couple, suspect Satyaprakash, was presented to the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Raipur (Narco Section), where polygraph and brain mapping tests were conducted. Based on the aforesaid report, technical evidence, the medical o/cer's opinion and the memorandum statement recorded during the accused's interrogation, it was established that the accused used to work as a domestic help and driver at the deceased persons' house. Dr. Ganesh Kumar Suryavanshi had borrowed ₹1,50,000 from the accused, and later borrowed an additional ₹30,000 from his cousin Ayodhya Sahu and gave it to the accused, which was not repaid. On the day of the incident, the accused went to Dr. Suryavanshi's house to demand his money, where he saw the couple arguing with each other. During the dispute, Dr. Ganesh Kumar Suryavanshi struck his wife Dr. Usha Suryavanshi on the head with a stone, causing her death. Fearing that he would be implicated along with Dr. Ganesh Kumar and that his money would be lost, the accused, with the intent to kill Dr. Sahab, pushed him hard, causing him to fall, and then struck Dr. Sahab on the head with the stone, killing him. To conceal the evidence of the murder, the accused admitted to dragging the bodies of the deceased to the backyard courtyard and placing them side by side, one on top of the other. The motorcycle used in the incident was seized from the accused, and the accused was arrested on 05.07.2025. Upon completion of the investigation, the 3 charge sheet was submitted to the competent court. 3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case on the basis of suspicion and circumstantial evidence. There is no direct eyewitness to the alleged occurrence, and the entire prosecution case rests upon the memorandum statement and certain technical reports, which by themselves are insu/cient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The appellant had worked as a domestic help and driver for the deceased couple and had no motive to commit murder. On the contrary, the prosecution’s own case suggests that there was a quarrel between the deceased husband and wife, during which Dr. Ganesh Suryavanshi had assaulted his wife. The alleged subsequent act attributed to the appellant is based solely on conjecture and not supported by any independent evidence. It is further submitted that the appellant has remained in custody since 05.07.2025, therefore he prays that the applicant be enlarged on bail. 4. Learned counsel for the State however opposing the bail application submits that the o<ence alleged against the appellant is of a grave and heinous nature, involving the brutal murder of two persons. The investigation has revealed the active involvement of the appellant, who not only assaulted the deceased Dr. Ganesh Kumar Suryavanshi with a stone, causing his death, but also attempted to conceal evidence by dragging and placing the bodies together. The recovery of incriminating material, including the motorcycle used in the incident, along with the appellant’s own memorandum statement and forensic 6ndings, clearly connect him with the crime. Considering the seriousness of the o<ence and the manner of commission, the appellant is not entitled to the bene6t of bail at this stage. 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 aforesaid facts and circumstances, particularly the fact that the material collected during investigation clearly indicates the active involvement of the applicant in the commission of a double murder, which is a heinous o<ence punishable under Section 302 of the 4 Indian Penal Code and further considering the fact that the allegations against the applicant are serious in nature, supported by his own memorandum statement, recovery of incriminating articles, and other corroborative evidence and considering the gravity of the o<ence, the manner in which it was committed, this Court does not 6nd any justi6able ground to grant bail. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected. 7. O/ce is directed to provide a certi6ed copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Jyoti