1 2025:CGHC:60236 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 10245 of 2025  Md. Chand S/o Ahmad Ansari Aged About 25 Years R/o Ward No. 09, Bazardand Bimda, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus  State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House OfÏcer, Police Station- Sitapur, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ---Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Keshav Dewangan, Advocate. For-Non-applicant : Ms. Sunita Manikpuri, Dy. G.A. Hon’ble Shri Arvind Kumar Vema, Judge Order on Board 11/12/2025 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the B.N.S.S. for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 177/2025 registered at Police Station Sitapur, District Sarguja (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 103, 332, 115(2), 351(2), 310(3), 109 of BNS. 2. The allegation against the present applicant as per the prosecution case is that, the complainant Bhanu Nagwanshi made a complaint before the Police Station Sitapur by stating that his grandmother Tilaso Bai went there in the house of Mohan Guruji and stated that on 07.05.2025 in the night at about12.00-1.00 am, some unknown persons trace passed her house for theft of goats but when her son Raidu Nagwanshi woke up then the said unknown person committed threaten to her son by using lathi, due to which her son Raidu Nagwanshi got Digitally signed by JYOTI JHA Date: 2025.12.12 11:23:25 +0530 2 injured and died on the spot. That, after receiving the said information, the concerned police investigated the matter and found that the present applicant along with other co-accused persons committed the said crime for the purpose of theft of goats, then the concerned police arrested the present applicant and during TIP, the Tilaso Bai identified the present applicant, thus the concerned police arrested the present applicant on 28.06.2025 and after completion of entire investigation, filed the charge-sheet by declaring the absconded of other co-accused persons. 3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case on the basis of suspicion and circumstantial evidence. There is no direct eyewitness to the alleged occurrence. He further submits that on perusal of statement made by Tilaso Bai, she has specifically state that on the date of incident, two unknown persons have committed the crime, but as per perusal of the challan, the concerned police registered the name of four accused persons in this crime, thus the suspicion may be arisen regarding the involvement of the present applicant in the said crime. It is further submitted that the applicant has remained in custody since 28.06.2025, therefore he prays that the applicant be enlarged on bail. 4. Learned counsel for the State however opposing the bail application submits that the offence alleged against the applicant is of a grave and heinous nature. The investigation has revealed the active involvement of the applicant that he assaulted the deceased Raidu Nagwanshi with a lathi, causing his death. Considering the seriousness of the offence and the manner of commission, the applicant is not entitled to the benefit of bail at this stage. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary produced by the learned counsel for the State. 6. On perusal of records, this Court finds that the allegations against the applicant relate to offences of a grave nature, including assault resulting in the death of the victim during an alleged attempt to commit theft. The case diary reveals that the applicant has been specifically identified in the Test Identification Parade by the witness Tilaso Bai, who is the 3 mother of the deceased, and her statement prima facie supports the prosecution case regarding the participation of the applicant in the incident. The act attributed to the applicant, of assaulting the deceased with a lathi leading to his death, reflects his active role in the commission of the offence. Considering the seriousness of the accusations, the manner in which the crime was committed, the gravity of the offence punishable with severe sentence, this Court does not find any justifiable ground to grant bail. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected. 7. OfÏce is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Jyoti