Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 10180 (CHH)

HRIDAY SINGH MARKO @ HRIDAY LAL v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

MCRC/3424/2026 · 2026-05-03

Shri Radhakishan Agrawal

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2026:CGHC:20737 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 3424 of 2026 • Hriday Singh Marko @ Hriday Lal S/o Rai Singh Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Gudru, Chowki Balangi, P.S. Raghunath Nagar, Distt. Balrampur Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus • State of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Raghunath Nagar, Distt. Balrampur Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicant : Ms. Kusum Lalchandani, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Anant Bajpai, PL and Ms. Priya Sharma, PL Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Order on Board 04/05/2026 1. The accused/applicant has moved this first bail application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023, for releasing him on regular bail during trial in connection with Crime No. 129/2022 registered at Police Station – Raghunath Nagar, District – Balrampur- Ramanujganj (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 302 & 201 of Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘IPC’). PRAKASH KUMAR Digitally signed by PRAKASH KUMAR Date: 2026.05.05 10:36:46 +0530 2 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 01.09.2022, complainant- Sukhram Gond, lodged a report at Police Chowki Balangi stating that on 31.08.2022, he was informed by Pyare Lal, brother of the applicant, that the applicant had assaulted his wife- Rupan Bai. Upon receiving the said information, the complainant reached the house of the injured and found her lying in an injured condition, whereafter she was taken to the hospital for treatment. During the course of treatment, Rupan Bai succumbed to her injuries, and after completion of the investigation, charge-sheet under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC were filed against the applicant/accused. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. She further submits that out of 27 prosecution witnesses, 14 have already been examined and have not supported the case of the prosecution. Lastly, she submits that the applicant is in jail since 12.09.2022, therefore, he may be released on bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the deceased was the wife of the applicant/accused, and the incident took place in her matrimonial home. They submit that as per the statements of the father (PW-1) and mother (PW-2) of the deceased, upon receiving information, they reached the house of their daughter and found her in an injured condition with blood oozing. Learned State counsel also submits that when the parents of the deceased inquired about the incident, the accused attempted to assault them. They further submit that some of the prosecution witnesses are yet to be examined and that appreciation of evidence is not required at 3 this stage, as the trial is in progress, therefore, they pray for dismissal of the application. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the nature and gravity of the offence and further considering that the offence was committed in her matrimonial home, as also that the trial is still in progress, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is not inclined to release the applicant on bail. 7. Accordingly, the bail application filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 is rejected. However, the trial Court is directed to expedite the trial. 8. Office is directed to sent a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/-/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Priyanka