1 2025:CGHC:54407 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRC No. 8879 of 2025 Shailendra Sharma @ Chhotu S/o Nirmal Sharma Aged About 29 Years R/o Ward No. 02 Dongripara, Lormi, Police Station Lormi, Dist. Mungeli, C.G. ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Lormi, Dist. Mungeli (C.G.) ---- Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Nitesh Sahu, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Ram Krishna Kashyap, Advocate For Respondent/State : Ms. Sunita Manikpuri, Dy. GA Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 07/11/2025 1. The applicant has been preferred this first bail application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 for grant of regular bail. The applicant is arrested in connection with Crime No.411/2025, registered at Police Station- Lormi, District Mungeli (C.G.) for the offence punishable VASANT KUMAR Digitally signed by VASANT KUMAR Date: 2025.11.10 10:58:44 +0530 2 under Sections 140(1), 103(1), 238, 61(2), 192(2), 191(3) of BNS & Sections 25, 27 of the Arms Act. 2. Brief facts of this case are that brother of the deceased namely Sanjay Verma filed a report at Lormi police station stating that on June 27, 2025, at around 8:00 pm, deceased Dashrath Verma left home after dinner. When deceased did not return home until late at night, he called his brother, who then told him that he was with Ajju Thakur, Chintu, and Pawan. When the applicant called deceased again, he said he was coming home. Then the complainant went to sleep at around 11:00 pm. When he woke up in the morning, he found that deceased had not returned and that his mobile phone was switched off when he called. He inquired around but could not find his brother. When he asked Ajju Thakur, he too did not say anything and went away hiding his face. A few days ago, at the wedding of Ajju Thakur's sister, the deceased Dashrath Verma had a fight with Ajju Thakur and his friends. On 27.06.2025, deceased was with the same people. The complainant suspects that due to the aforesaid enmity, the accused Ajju Thakur, Chintu Mahara alias Gautam, Pawan Kumbhakar and Vivek Tiwari have kidnapped the complainant's brother Dashrath Verma with the intention of killing him. On the complainant's report, the Lormi police station registered a case against the accused under Section 140(1), 3 (5) of the Indian Penal Code under Crime No. 411/2025 and took it into investigation. During the investigation, suspects Ajju Thakur, Chintu Mahara alias Gautam, Pawan Kumbhakar and Vivek Tiwari were taken 3 into custody and their statement was recorded, they told that on 27.06.2025, in the night, all four of them were eating together behind Bazarpara Sulabh. During the same night, they lured the deceased Dashrath Verma and made him sit beside them, quarrelled with him, picked him up and took him near Kankalin temple. All four of them together killed Dashrath by stabbing him in the chest, throat, stomach, forehead and cheek with a knife. They threw the body in the nearby river after tying it with a stone. They crushed the mobile phone of the deceased and threw it in the river. Hence offences under section under Section 103 (1), 238 of the BNS were added. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that, the applicant is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the alleged crime, he has not committed any offence as alleged against him. He further contended that the FIR was lodged by the brother of the deceased against person namely Ajeet Thakur, Chintu Mahra Gautam, Pawan Kumbhkar & Vivek Tiwari and not against the present applicant. The applicant was made accused in the present case solely on the basis of supplementary memorandum statement of co-accused. However, the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, contains no provision for supplementary memorandum statement. According to the memorandum of the co-accused namely Ajeet Thakur, Pawan Kumbhakar, Gautam @ Chintu Mahra & Vivek Kumar Tiwari at around 11:00 PM the deceased was crossing through the Bajarpara when other co-accused namely Ajeet Thakur called him and they had 4 heated conversation there and afterwards they took the deceased to Kankalin Mandir. Hence, according to their memorandum the deceased was not brought up by the present applicant to the Kankalin Mandir which is said to be the place of incident, which in itself proves that the present applicant is not participant in the present case. According to the FIR when the complainant called the deceased to ask about his whereabouts deceased did not even mentions the name of the present applicant being there with him which also proves that applicant was not even present at the place of the incident. The applicant is in jail since 29.06.2025 and and trial is likely to take some time, therefore, it is prayed that the applicant may be released on bail. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application submitted by the applicant. 5. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties, perused the case diary and other materials available on record. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case. On perusal of the record, I have found that the applicant was not named FIR. FIR was lodged against Ajju Thakur, Chintu Mahra @ Gautam, Pawan Kumbhkar and Vivek Tiwari and not against the present applicant. The applicant is made accused on the basis of supplementary memorandum statement of co-accused, but there is no incriminating material has been seized fro the present applicant. As per memorandum statement of the co-accused, the deceased was brought up by the 5 applicant by motorcycle, therefore, involvement of the present applicant in crime in question. The applicant is in jail since 29.06.2025 and conclusion of the trial may take some more time, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 7. Let the applicant involved in Crime No.411/2025, registered at Police Station- Lormi, District Mungeli (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 140(1), 103(1), 238, 61(2), 192(2), 191(3) of BNS & Sections 25, 27 of the Arms Act, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.10,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions : (i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 of BNS, 2023. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation 6 under Section 84 of the BNSS, 2023 is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of BNS, 2023. (iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 351 of BNSS, 2023. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. 8. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Vasant