1 2025:CGHC:14338 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 1435 of 2025 1 - Praveen Bargah S/o Keshav Bargah Aged About 21 Years R/o Dhardei Police Station Pathria, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Thana Pathria, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Shri Uttam Pandey, Advocate assisted by Ms. Pooja Sinha, Advocate For Respondent/State For Objector : : Ms. Pragya Shrivastav, Dy.GA for the State Shri Dheerendra Pandey, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board 25/03/2025 The applicant has filed this bail application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrrik Suraksha Sanhita for grant of regular bail as he is in custody in connection with Crime No. 195/2024 registered at police station Patharia, District Mungeli, (CG) ) for the offence punishable under Sections 103(1) of the BNS Act, 2023 and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 2 2. Prosecution case in brief is that complainant lodged a report alleging that on 14.08.2024, he had gone to his fields at village Chirauti, on the way, at village Dhardei, his brother Daulat Patre (deceased) and Hoshiyar met him and they had some conversation. Thereafter while returning to his village, due to rain, he stopped near a betel shop where his brother asked for money from Manoj Yadav who gave him Rs. 500/-. During this period, the present applicant who was also present there, restrained him to give money upon which quarrel took place between them resulting to maarpeeth. The applicant made a call to his friends ie. co-accused persons who came on the spot and started beating his brother Daulat with club as a result of which he sustained injuries and died on the spot. 3. Contention of the counsel for the applicant submits that there are 29 witnesses to the incident and out of which 10 witnesses have been examined and they have not stated anything against the applicant. He further submits that one of the witness namely Vicky Yadav(PW-1) has stated that the deceased was a rogue and also involved in a murder case, forcibly took money from the vegetable vendors. He further submits that the applicant is a student and there is no direct evidence against him or his involvement in the offence. Lastly, it is submitted that the applicant is in jail since 16.08.2024 and looking to the conduct of the prosecution it is clear that the trial will take time for its conclusion and therefore 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 applicant has committed the offence of murder and threatening the complainant, therefore, he may not be released on bail. 3 5. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the case diary with utmost circumspection. 6. On due consideration of the rival submissions and the fact that the applicant along with the co-accused persons had assaulted the deceased with lathi and committed his murder, therefore looking to the nature and gravity of the offence, I am not inclined to release the applicants on bail. Accordingly, his bail application filed under Section 483 of the BNSS is hereby rejected. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge SUGUNA DUBEY Digitally signed by SUGUNA DUBEY Date: 2025.04.01 16:01:45 +0530