1 2025:CGHC:52009 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 6940 of 2025 • Suraj Verma S/o Late Jeet Lal Verma Aged About 42 Years (As Per Arrest Memo), R/o Village Baghera Bhata, P.S. Dongargarh, Distt. Rajnandgaon C.G. ... Applicant. versus • State of Chhattisgarh Through S.H.O. Bortalab District Rajnandgaon C.G. ... Respondent(s) For applicant. : Mr. Sudhanshu Kumar Singh, Advocate. For Respondent(s)/State. : Mr. Aditya Tiwari, Panel Lawyer (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas) Order on Board 17/10/2025 1. The applicant has preferred this first bail application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 for grant of regular bail as he has been arrested on 20-6-2023 in connection with Crime No. 52 of 2021 registered at Police Station – Bortalab, District Rajnandgaon (CG) for alleged commission of offences under Section 302, 193, 201, 120-B, 34 of IPC. 2 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 29-6-2021 a report was lodged in Police Station Bortalab, District Rajnandgaon against unknown persons stating therein that on 24-6-2021 deceased namely Ramesh Janbandhu was missing after he left the house on 2-6-2021 at 4.00 am thereafter, a missing report vide No. 44 of 2021 was registered by the Police and upon investigation on 28-6-2021 a dead body was found at Raurkasa Dam in a decomposed state thereafter on suspicious a narco test was conducted whereby Police arrested the applicant along with other co- accused persons. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. Only on mere suspicion present applicant has been implicated as accused person whereas the Hon’ble Supreme Court has time and again enumerated that suspicion however, grave cannot be the basis of conviction. He would further submit that prosecution has failed to collect any incriminating evidence against the present applicant and only on the basis of suspicion, present applicant has been arrested and the memorandum witnesses have denied the the contents of memorandum statement. He would further submit that FIR was lodged after two years of the incident and the present applicant has been arrested after three years of the incident. He would out of 39 witnesses, only 24 witnesses have been examined and remaining 15 witnesses have to be examined. The applicant is in jail since 20-6-2023 whereby he is in jail more than two years . He would further submit that the case of the present applicant is similar to that of other co-accused Ajay Sharma, who has been granted bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 23-5-2025 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 2807 of 2025 and trial may take some time, therefore, the present applicant may be released on bail on the ground of parity. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposing the aforesaid submissions would submit that that the applicant has been charged under 3 Section 302 and 201/34 of IPC , therefore, even if the memorandum statement is not there, involvement of the applicant cannot be ruled out. Therefore, he is not entitled to be released on bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the fact that the applicant is in jail since 20-6-2023 and also considering the fact that the other co-accused person has already been granted bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 23-5-2025, I am inclined to grant bail to the applicant. Therefore, the application filed under Section 439 of the CrPC is allowed. It is directed that in the event of executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety of the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court for his appearance before the concerned Court as and when directed by the said court, he be released on bail. Certified copy as per rules. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) JUDGE Raju RAVVA SATYANARAYANA RAJU Digitally signed by RAVVA SATYANARAYANA RAJU Date: 2025.10.17 17:17:43 +0530