1 2025:CGHC:56281 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 9338 of 2025 1 - Rinku Kashyap S/o. Shri Vijendra Kashyap, Aged About 19 Years R/o Ward No. 4, Kankalinpara, Lormi, Thana And Tahsil- Lormi, Distt. Mungeli (C.G.) 2 - Ajay Kashyap S/o Shri Rajendra Kashyap, Aged About 20 Years R/o Ward No. 4, Kankalinpara, Lormi, Thana And Tahsil Lormi, Distt. Mungeli (C.G.) ... Applicants versus 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Lormi, Distt. Mungeli (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicants : Mr. Sumit Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Sunita Manikpuri, Dy. G.A. Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 19/11/2025 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicants who were 2 arrested on 01.07.2025 in connection with Crime No. 411/2025, registered at Police Station- Lormi, District- Mungeli (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 140(2), 103(1) r/w 190, 238-B, 61(2), 191(2), 191(3) of BNS, 2023. 2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that brother of the deceased namely Sanjay Verma filed a report at Lormi police station stating that on 27.06.2025, 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 IPC under Crime No. 411/2025 and took it into investigation. During investigation, suspects Ajju Thakur, Chintu 3 Mahara alias Gautam,, Pawan Kumbhakar and Vivek Tiwari were taken 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. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that 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. According to the memorandum of the co-accused namely Ajeet Thakur, Pawan Kumbhakar, Gautam @ Chintu Mahra and Vivek Kumar Tiwari at around 11:00 pm the deceased was crossing through the Bajarpara when the other co-accused namely Ajeet Thakur called him and they had 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 a 4 participant in the present case. No weapon has been seized from possession of the present applicant. 4. Learned State Counsel raised objection to the contentions of the counsel for the applicant. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the fact that the name of the present applicants were not mentioned in the FIR. The present applicants have been made accused on the basis of supplementary memorandum statement of co-accused, but there is no incriminating material seized from the present applicants. As per the memorandum statement of co- accused the deceased was crossing through the Bajarpara when the other co-accused Ajeet Thakur called him and they had heated converstaion there and afterwards they took the deceased to Kankalin Mandir. Hence, according to their memorandum the deceased was not brought up by the present applicants to the Kankalin Mandir which is said to be the place of the incident, which in itself proves that the present applicant is not a participant in the present case, therefore, looking to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, particularly, the role of the present applicants, this Court is of the view that the applicants are not the main accused and are languishing in jail since 01.07.2025 and are entitled to be released on bail in this case. 5 7. Let the applicants – Rinku Kashyap and Ajay Kashya, involved in Crime No. 411/2025 registered at Police Station- Lormi, District- Mungeli (C.G.), for the aforesaid offence be released on bail on their furnishing a bail 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 them under Section 269 of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS, is issued and the applicant fail to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against them, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of 6 Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 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 BNSS. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicants 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 them 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 Madhurima