1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 9687 of 2025 1 - Devika Chandrakar S/o Lt. Yupesh Chandrakar Aged About 40 Years R/o New Rawanbhata Mahasamund, Thana Teh. Mahasamund, Distt. Mahasamund(C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Mahasamund, Distt. Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Nikhil Wadhwani, Advocate. For Non-applicant(s) : Mr. Rajeev Bharat, Govt. Advocate. Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. Order on Board 10/12//2025 1. On due consideration, the default pointed out by the Registry is hereby waived. 2. Heard. 3. This is the second bail application of the applicant who is arrested on 28.05.2024 in the Crime No. 265/2024, registered at Police Station, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund for the offence under Section 302, 201 and 34 of IPC. 4. The first bail application of the applicant has been dismissed on merits vide order dated 06.01.2025 passed by this Court in MCRC No. 8941/2024, thereafter, the applicant approached before the Hon’ble Supreme Court by filing SLP (Crl.) No. 5859/2025, which has also been disposed of on 25.04.2025 granting liberty to the applicant to renew his request after 06 months from today and thereafter, the present second bail application has been filed on 07.11.2025. ALOK SHARMA Digitally signed by ALOK SHARMA Date: 2025.12.11 11:16:23 +0530 2 5. The case of prosecution in brief is that on 08.12.2023 there was a dispute between the deceased and his wife Devika Chandraker (applicant) which became aggravated and then the co-accused Anjani Chandrakar and her daughter Devika called the Mukund and when Mukund came to the house of Anjani Chandrakar, the deceased became more annoyed as to why the third person would intervene on their matter then the applicant Devika assaulted the deceased by lathi by which he fell down and died on the spot. Thereafter, the co-accused Anjani Chandrakar and the present applicants buried the dead body in the office premises of the applicant Mukund. On 14.12.2023 the applicant Devika lodged the missing report that her husband is missing since 08.12.2023 and his whereabouts could not be traced out. During inquiry of missing person the dead body was recovered on pointing out by applicant Mukund Tripathi on 27.05.2024 and in the post-mortem it was opined that he died due to homicidal death. The offence has been registered and the applicants and other co-accused person have been arrested on 30.05.2024 and charge-sheet has been filed. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that there is no evidence against the applicant that she has also involved in the commission of the alleged offence and she herself lodged a missing report with respect to the missing of her husband since 08.12.2023. The case of the prosecution is based on the memorandum statement of the applicant of the applicant and co-accused. He would also submits that the co-caused Anjani Chandraker has been released on bail vide order dated 09.12.2024 passed in MCRC No. 6651/2024 and the case of the present applicant is similar to the case of Anjani Chandraker, and final adjudication of the case will take its own time, therefore, he may be enlarged on bail. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes and submitted that the deceased Upesh Chandraker was the husband of the present applicant and from the material available in the case diary, it comes that the present 3 applicant is having illicit relation with the co-accused Mukund Tripathi and both of them have committed murder of the deceased. The present applicant firstly assaulted the deceased by club and he fell down, the co-accused pressed his neck and wrapped his head by polythene and thereafter, both of them have buried the dead body in the rented premises of the co-accused Mukund Tripathi. The dead body was recovered on the instance of the present applicant as well as co-accused Mukund Tripathi in the same condition which has been narrated in their memorandum statement. The first bail application of the applicant has been dismissed on merits and, therefore, the applicant is not entitled for bail. 8. On a pointed query is being asked from the learned counsel for the applicant about stage of trial, he could not point out the state of trial as to how many witnesses have been examined till date. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the bail application. 10. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, considering the nature of allegation and the material collected during the investigation further considering the allegation against the present applicant and her role attributed in commission of the alleged offence, the statement of the witnesses and further considering that the dead body was recovered on the instance of the applicant as well as co-accused from the rented premises of the co-accused Mukund Triapthi, and further that the first bail application of the applicant has been rejected on merits, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail. 11. Accordingly, his second bail application is rejected. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Alok