1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 9534 of 2025 1 - Karan Sahu S/o Uman Sahu Aged About 27 Years R/o Dandgaon, Police Station City Pathariya, Distt. Mungeli Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station City Kotwali Mungeli, Distt. Mungeli Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Applicant : Ms. Indrapreet Kaur Chhabra, Adv. For State : Mr. Ankur Kashyap, Dy. G.A. For Objector : Mr. Rishi Rahul Soni, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board 25/11/2025 1. This is the second bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 109/2025 registered at Police Station City Kotwali, Mungeli, District Mungeli (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 103(1), 238, 191(2) HEERA LAL SAHU Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2025.11.25 16:19:01 +0530 2 of BNS, 2023 and Sections 25 & 27 of Arms Act. 2. The first bail application of the applicant was dismissed on merit on 21.08.2025 in MCRC No. 6187/2025. 3. As per the prosecution’s case, a quarrel erupted on April 3, 2025, between the applicant, co-accused (including a juvenile), and Dharmendra and Tikendra Sahu. The aplicant allegedly instigated the co-accused, leading to an assault on both victims. Tikendra Sahu was tatally stabbed, sustaining grievous injuries, resulting in his death. Based on this, offence has ben registered against the present applicant. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. She further submits that the main accused is a juvenile co-accused to whom the knife has been seized. There is no seizure from the present applicant. The FIR is against unknown persons. The applicant has been implicated only on the basis of the memorandum statement of the juvenile accused. She also submits that the juvenile co-accused has been granted bail, and the other three major co-accused have also been granted bail. He next submits that the injured eye witness, Dharmendra Sahu (PW-3), turned hostile and does not support the case of the prosecution against the applicant. The applicant is in jail 3 since 05.04.2025, and the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude. Therefore, he prays for the grant of regular bail to the applicant. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposed the bail application and submitted that the applicant along with other co-accused persons, committed a heinous offence of murder. Chandrika Prasad (PW-8) supported the case of the prosecution; therefore, at this stage, he may not be enlarged on bail. 6. Learned counsel for the objector also opposes the bail application and submits that Chandrika Prasad (PW-8) clearly supported the case of the prosecution against the present applicant. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to grant of bail. 7. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that injured eye witness namely Dharmendra Sahu (PW-3) has been examined before the trial Court, there is no seizure from the present applicant, the main co-accused juvenile and other three major co- accused persons have already been granted bail, further considering the fact that 14 witnesses out of 33 witnesses have been examined and the applicant is in custody since 4 05.04.2025, and the trial is likely to take considerable time, therefore, at this stage, without commenting on merits of the case, I am inclined to release the applicant on bail. 9. Accordingly, the application is allowed and it is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court. The applicant is directed to appear before the trial Court on each and every date to be given to him by the said Court till disposal of the trial. It is made clear that any observation made by this Court in this order shall not affect the trial of the case. 10. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge H.L. Sahu