1 2025:CGHC:54702 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 8280 of 2025 • Gopal Agarwal S/o Ratanlal Agarwal, Aged About 47 Years R/o Village Delwadih, P.S. Katghora, District Korba (C.G.) --- Applicant versus • State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Katghora, District Korba (C.G.) --- Respondent For Applicant : Ms. Juhi Jaiswal, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Sanjeev Pandey, Dy. AG. Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 10/11/2025 1. This is first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 for grant of regular bail to applicant, who has been arrested in connection with Crime No.79/2025, registered at PS -Katghora, District Korba (C.G.), for commission of offence punishable under Sections 109(1), 103(1) of BNS. 2. Case of prosecution, in brief, is that present applicant took his wife (deceased) in his car and behind the Delwadeh Colony near Mukti Dham, he burned her entire body with petrol and later on left her 2 alone at the place of incident. The deceased run from the place to incident to Durga Pandal Delwadeh Colony and later on she was taken to hospital where during treatment she died. Based upon report, FIR was registered and accused-applicant has arrested for the aforementioned crime/offence. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in this case, he has not committed any offence as alleged against him. The applicant has been arrested on the basis of the complaint lodged by the brother of the deceased without there being any evidence which could prove that present applicant was present at the place of incident. As per the statement given by complainant, who is brother of the deceased, on 18.02.2025 the deceased went to live in his house and later on went back to her matrimonial house but there is no evidence to prove that she went back to her matrimonial house. The entire story of the prosecution is based on the complaint and statement given by the brother of the deceased who has stated that the deceased was burned by the present applicant. As per the Final Report, the deceased was firstly taken to community health centre katghora whereby, her statement was taken in presence of Executive Magistrate, the time which is mentioned on the said dying declaration is 5:47am but on a contrary as per the daily record (Rojnamcha) maintained by the police which is also part of the challan, the time of recording of dying declaration in presence of executive magistrate is mentioned an 10:30. Said statement/dying declaration doesn't have endorsement of any 3 doctor which could affirm the fit state of mind to depose. As per the challan the statement of the deceased was again recorded at Medical collage Korba by Doctor at 10:30 am but the same was not recorded in presence of any police officer or magistrate. The entire story of the prosecution is based on the dying declaration of the deceased which is hearsay evidence and cannot be tested therefore, the case cannot be solely dependent on such evidence. The prosecution has failed to examine and investigate the case on the point that the complainant/brother of the deceased himself stated that the deceased was living with her brother till 18.02.2025 and later on left for her matrimonial house but whether she went back to her matrimonial house or was the incident occurred later in between is not proved by any evidence. The entire case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidences which are not backed by any proof which will only be examined during the trial. There are no eye witness in the present case who have given statement against the present applicant or even otherwise there is no evidence to prove that the deceased was last scene with the present applicant. Applicant is in jail since 20.02.2025, conclusion of trial may take some time, hence, applicant may be released on bail. 4. Per contra, learned State Counsel opposing the bail application of the applicant and submits that in her dying declaration, deceased wife has stated that the alleged crime/offence has been committed by the applicant-husband, hence, applicant is not entitled for grant of bail. 4 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. Considering facts of the case, nature of offence, submissions of learned counsel for the parties, particularly the dying declaration of the deceased and other material/evidence available in the case diary, I am not inclined to allow this bail application. 7. Accordingly, bail application is hereby rejected. CC as per rules. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge J/-