1 2026:CGHC:636 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 10514 of 2025 Ramkesh S/o Shri Luran Aged About 40 Years R/o Bilhma Amapara Thana Dhaurpur, Distt.- Surguja (C.G.) ... Applicant versus The State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House OfÏcer, Police Station Dhaurpur, District- Surguja (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Rajendra Patel, Advocate For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Ankita Shukla, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 06.01.202 6 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 24/2025 registered at Police Station- Dhaurpur, District- Surguja, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 105 and 287 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that a Merg No. 20/2025 was registered on 04.07.2025 regarding the death of Smt. Geeta Markam, wife of Rajdev. During the course of the merg enquiry, RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 statements of witnesses were recorded, wherein it was stated that on 27.04.2025, at the marriage function of the daughter of Jagatram, the present applicant was allegedly performing a magic act using a petromax, and while demonstrating the said act before a gathering, flames erupted from his mouth, as a result of which Smt. Geeta Markam sustained burn injuries. She was thereafter taken to DKS Hospital, Raipur, where she succumbed to the injuries. On the basis of the merg enquiry, an FIR was registered, the applicant was arrested, and after completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet has been filed. Hence, the present bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case, as he neither committed any offence nor acted with any intention or knowledge to cause harm, and the alleged incident was a mere accident, which at the most may amount to negligence punishable under Section 106(1) of the BNS. It is submitted that on the date of the incident, the applicant was called by Jagatram Gond to perform magic tricks for entertainment during the marriage function of his daughter, during which burn injuries were accidentally sustained by Geeta Markam and some other persons. No report was lodged from 27.04.2025 till 04.07.2025, as the incident was treated as accidental, and only upon the death of Geeta Markam during treatment was information given by the hospital ward boy, pursuant to which the merg was registered, and the applicant was arrested after about four months on 12.08.2025. It is further submitted that the investigation stands completed and the charge-sheet has been filed, and none of the 3 witnesses have made any allegation against the present applicant; mere performance of magic for entertainment does not attract the ingredients of Section 105 of the BNS, and in absence of any intention or knowledge, the offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder is not made out, and at the highest, an offence under Section 106(1) of the BNS may be said to be attracted. He further submits that the applicant has been in judicial custody since 12.08.2025, and has no previous criminal antecedents, the charge- sheet has been filed and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the incident resulted in the death of Smt. Geeta Markam, which occurred during a public function where the present applicant was performing dangerous acts involving fire with a petromax, endangering the safety of persons present at the spot. It is submitted that the act of the applicant was rash and negligent, and the burn injuries sustained by the deceased were a direct consequence of the applicant’s conduct, which ultimately led to her death during treatment. She further submits that the offence is of a serious nature involving loss of human life, the role of the applicant is clearly reflected from the statements of witnesses recorded during merg enquiry, and therefore, looking to the gravity of the offence and involvement of the applicant, he does not deserve to be enlarged on bail at this stage. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 4 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case particularly that the incident appears to be accidental in nature, that the applicant was performing magic tricks for entertainment during a marriage function and there is no material on record to show any intention or knowledge on his part to cause death, as well as the fact that the charge-sheet has been filed, and further taking into account the applicant is languishing in jail since 12.08.2025 and the nature of allegations, this Court is of the opinion that the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail, without commenting on the merits of the case. 7. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. 8. Let the Applicant – Ramkesh, involved in Crime No. 24/2025 registered at Police Station- Dhaurpur, District- Surguja, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 105 and 287 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, be released on bail on furnishing personal bond with two local sureties in the like sum 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 5 his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufÏcient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (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. 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 the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (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. 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 him in accordance with law. 9. OfÏce is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan