1 2025:CGHC:60238 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 10216 of 2025  Laxman Rajwade S/o Ram Kumar Rajwade Aged About 21 Years R/o Village Karri, P.S. Sonhat Tahsil Sonhat, Distt. Korea, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus  State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House OfÏcer, P.S. Churcha, Distt. Korea, Chhattisgarh. ---Non-Applicant For Applicants : Mr. Mahendra K. Sahu, Advocate For-Non-applicant : Ms. Sunita Manikpuri, Dy. G.A. Hon’ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 11/12/2025 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. in connection with Crime No. 132/2025, registered at Police Station Churcha District Korea, Chhattisgarh for the offences punishable under Sections 103, 238 and 3(5) of BNS 2023. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the informant Moti Ram lodged information before the polices station Churcha that an unknown dead body was lying at Patewa Ghat, Tikhur Nala Tarra. Based on this, Dehati Merg Intimation and Dehati Nalishi were registered. During panchnama proceeding, 2 deceased was identified as Jaiprakash Toppo S/o Lt. Somar Sai and during the investigation it was found that the deceased was lastly seen with the present applicant and co-accused Ramdev Rajwade. According the police statement of Kaushalya, the deceased, applicant and co- accused were present were gone to the house of Kaushlaya on 08.07.2025 at about 3.00 pm, consumed liquor and thereafter left together stating that they were going home. However, deceased was found dead. On the above basis, FIR was registered. 3. Contention of the counsel for the applicant is that the applicant has been falsely implicated and the entire case is based on circumstantial evidence and no direct material connects the applicant with the alleged offence. As per the postmortem report, dated 12.07.2025, deceased died 6 days prior to the examination ie. the death occurred around 05.07.2025 or 06.07.2025. He further submits that the prosecution relied on the “last seen theory” alleging that the deceased was last seen with the applicant on 08.07.2025 which is after the probable date of death, clearly falsifying the prosecution version and indicating concoction and exaggeration. Lastly, it is submitted that the applicant is in jail since 14.07.2025 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 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, on the other hand, has opposed the bail application and submits that the deceased was last seen in the company of the applicant and co-accused. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 3 6. The prosecution case rests solely on the circumstantial evidence. The postmortem report indicates that the deceased died 6-7 days prior to 12.07.2025 thereby suggesting the probable date of death to be 05.07.2025 or 06.07.2025. However, the “last seen” version of the witness Kaushalya is dated 08.07.2025 subsequent to the probable date of death substantially weakening the prosecution’s last seen theory. There is no recovery, no direct evidence and no motive attributed specifically to the applicant. In view of the above circumstances, particularly the inconsistency between the medical evidence and the last seen theory and considering that the applicant is in jail since 14.07.2025, the charge sheet has been filed and looking to the fact that the final disposal of the trial is likely to take sufÏciently long time, the present application deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, his bail application is allowed. 7. Let the applicant be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond Rs. 10,000/- with one surety to each applicants in the like amount 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 their counsel. In case of his absence, without sufÏcient cause, the trial court may proceed against them under Section 269 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sahita, 2023 (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 84 of 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 Bhartiya Nyaya Sahita, 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 4 2023 If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufÏcient 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. OfÏce is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information. 9. It is made clear that the observations made hereinabove is only for the purpose of deciding the bail application and the trial Court will decide the case on its own merit without being influenced by any observation made hereinabove. It is also made clear that the trial Court is at liberty to cancel the bail application of the applicant in the event of applicant involving himself in similar offence in future. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Jyoti