1 2025:CGHC:59070 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 9971 of 2025 • Mukesh Ravi S/o Late Ramnath Ravi Aged About 32 Years R/o- Village- Dandi, P.S.- Dandi, District- Gadwa (Jharkhand) ... Applicant. versus • State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S.- Kota, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) --- Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Shyam Kumar, Advocate For Respondent/State : Ms. Sunita Manikpuri, PL. Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 05/12/2025 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.245/2025, registered at PS -Kota, District- Bilaspur (C.G.), for commission of offence punishable under Sections 103(1) of BNS. 2. Case of prosecution, in brief, is that on 10.03.2025 around 8:00 P.M. to 9:00 P.M., the present applicant had an argument with his younger brother on the phone call regarding land related money, to 2 which, his nephew Supreme Kumar (deceased) has intervened. Later, on at about 11:00 PM, while returning from the Omaxe Minerals railway siding, the applicant has allegedly killed the deceased by striking his head multiple times with a coal stone and concealed the body under a coal heap. On 15.03.2025, a supervisor noticed a foul smell near the railway line and informed the police, who then recovered the deceased's body of deceased from the coal heap. Based upon which, FIR was registered and applicant has been arrested in 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. There is no evidence of record to suggest the involvement of the present applicant in the crime in question in any manner. The applicant is the biological uncle of the deceased and has no dispute or animosity with his elder brother (Akshay Kumar Ram). Statement of the complainant/Dinesh Kumar Sahu has already been recorded, wherein he categorically denied witnessing any map preparation ог seizure proceedings in his presence. Investigation at the scene suffers from serious inconsistencies. The Investigating Officer conducted two separate seizures from the same spot. Moreover, the prosecution has not produced a single eye-witness in the witnesses list. These circumstances clearly indicate that the applicant has been implicated solely on assumptions and presumptions, without any direct or reliable evidence. There is no any other criminal antecedent against the 3 applicant. Applicant is in jail since 25.03.2025, 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 as per post-mortem report death of deceased is homicidal in nature. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. Considering facts of the case, nature of allegations, submissions of learned counsel for the parties, particularly the manner, in which, deceased has been murdered and the fact that as per the post- mortem report death of deceased is homicidal in nature, I am not inclined to allow this bail application. 7. Accordingly, bail application is rejected. Certified copy as per rules. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge J/-