1 2025:CGHC:58692 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 9222 of 2025 1 - Kunwar Singh Sahu S/o Mahesh Ram Sahu Aged About 56 Years R/o Ward No. 7, Tendukona, Police Station Tendukona, District Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Patewa, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant (s) : Shri Manoj Paranjape, Sr. Counsel assisted by Shri Arpan Verma, Advocate For Respondent/State : Ms.Pragya Shrivastava, Dy.GA (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board 03/12/2025 The applicant has filed this bail application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrrik Suraksha Sanhita for grant of regular bail as he is in custody in connection with Crime No. 178/2024 registered at police 2 station Patewa, Mahasamund District Mahasamund (CG) for the offence punishable under Sections 103(1), 61 and 3(5) of BNSS. 2. The FIR dated 28.10.2024 stems from a merg enquiry revealing that Kunwar Singh Sahu, facing bank loan repayment issues, conspired to eliminate the deceased, dress him in his clothes and stage an accident. The applicant allegedly associated as driver or accomplice stands implicated through recovery of a motorcycle linked to the crime scene and memorandum statements under Section 180 BNSS. The charge sheet was filed on 22.12.2024 which relies on circumstantial evidence including the recovery, scene re-creation and witness statements recorded before the trial court. The applicant’s prior bail applications under Section 483 of the BNSS before the Sessions Judge, Mahasamund stand rejected vide orders dated 18.03.2025 and 16.10.2025 holding the involvement in a heinous murder triable exclusively by Sessions Court, recovery evidence sufficient at this stage. 3. Counsel for the applicant submits that there is false implication, absence of direct evidence or eyewitnesses, incomplete circumstantial chain as mandated by the Apex Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra, (1984) SCC 116, the hostile witnesses (PW-1 to 5 including brother of the deceased turning hostile with contradictions on seizure and timelines), lack of motive or last seen evidence, no forensic FSL report annexed, improbable prosecution theory sans missing report of deceased. He submits that the applicant is in prolonged detention since 30.10.2024, the charge sheet has been filed and the trial is likely to take some time, he is ready and willing to comply with any of the 3 conditions which may be imposed upon him and thus, it is submitted that the application be allowed and the applicant be released on bail. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent/State, opposes the bail and has asserted the gravity of ofence involving premeditated murder and conspiracy, prima facie case from motorcycle recovery pursuant to memorandum proves the involvement of the applicant. 5. Having carefully considered the material on record, including the FIR, charge sheet, statements of prosecution witnesses, arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicant and the State as well as the order of learned Sessions Judge, this Court is of the considered view that the alleged conspiracy to murder for faking death constitutes a barbaric crime and the motorcycle recovery linking applicant to scene coupled with memorandum leading to disclosure, discloses sufficient complicity notwithstanding gaps. Thus, in view of the above, no grounds exist for release of the applicant on bail. Accordingly, his bail application is rejected. However, looking to the detention period of the applicant, it is expected that the trial Court shall conclude the trial expeditiously. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge SUGUNA DUBEY Digitally signed by SUGUNA DUBEY Date: 2025.12.05 13:59:07 +0530