1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 1817 of 2026 1 - Bhavesh Kumar Thakur S/o Sudama Thakur Aged About 18 Years R/o Village Khuteri, Naya Abadipara, Ranchirai, Distt. Balod, Chhattisgarh. (Name And Address Wrongly Mentioned In The Covering Memo Of Impugned Order) ... Applicant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, P.S. Ranchirai, Distt. Balod, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Prasoon Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order On Board 02/03/2026 1. The applicant has preferred this First bail application under Section 483 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita Act, 2023 for grant of regular bail as he is arrested in connection with Crime No.75/2025, registered at Police Station – Ranchirai, District- Balod (C.G.) for offence punishable under Sections 103, 3(5) of BNS. 2. As per the prosecution’s case, on 11.06.2025, complainant Daulatram Bijhenkar lodged an oral report stating that on 11.06.2025, the accused/applicant along with co-accused Sudama Thakur, father of the applicant, chased the deceased Devvrat Binjhekar equipped with a stick, with the HEERA LAL SAHU Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2026.03.02 17:47:03 +0530 2 intention to kill him. It is alleged that near Dharam Sahu’s shop, co-accused Sudama Thakur caused the death of the deceased by inflicting fatal blows on his head, hands and legs with a stick. In the memorandum statement of co- accused Sudama Thakur, it has been accepted by him that he along with his son/applicant, chased Devvrat Binjhekar with a stick with the intention to kill him. Based on this, offence has been registered against the present applicant along with the co-accused. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the crime in question. He further submits that there are a total of 30 listed witnesses in this case, out of which 6 witnesses have been examined. All six examined witnesses have not said in their statements that they have seen the applicant assaulting the deceased. The deceased was a habitual offender and had 12 criminal antecedents. The applicant is in jail since 12.06.2025, and the trial is likely to take considerable time. Therefore, the applicant may be enlarged on bail. 4. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the bail application and submits that the applicant along with the co-accused, committed the heinous offence of murder. There is sufficient material available on record against the present applicant, and there are two eyewitnesses, namely Yamuna Sahu and Kishun Lal, in this case, who have not examined yet; therefore, at this stage, looking to the gravity of the offence, the applicant may not be released on bail. 5. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material available on record. 3 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the material available on record against the applicant and also considering the fact that eyewitnesses have yet to be examined, at this stage, without commenting on the merits of the case, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail. Accordingly, the bail application filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023, is rejected. 7. However, considering the fact that the applicant is in jail since 12.06.2025 and only 6 witnesses out of 30 witnesses have been examined till date, the concerned trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and to ensure that the trial is concluded as expeditiously as possible. 8. Office is directed to sent a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge H.L. Sahu