1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 675 of 2026 Shivnarayan Singh Shyamle S/o Devicharan Singh, Aged About 24 Years R/o Village Tenduval, Ps Babhani, District Sonbhadra U.P. ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer Of Police Station Sanawal District Balrampur Ramanujganj C.G. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Hariom Rai, Advocate For Respondent : Ms. Sunita Manikpuri, Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order On Board 02.02.2026 1. This is the first bail application filed u/s 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No.55/2025 registered at Police Station Sanawal, District Balrampur (CG) for the offence punishable under Section 103(1) of BNS. 2. As per the prosecution case, information regarding death of Kumari Parmeshwari was given by complainant/informant BHOLA NATH KHATAI Digitally signed by BHOLA NATH KHATAI Date: 2026.02.03 10:39:37 +0530 2 Vijay Singh Markam to Police Station Sanawal, Distrcit Balrampur-Ramanujganj (CG). During Merg investigation, finding the death of deceased Kumari Parmeshwari to be homicidal, a case was registered. During investigation, it was found that the deceased had love affair with applicant Shivnarayan Singh. The applicant had given her a mobile phone, but whenever the applicant called the deceased, her mobile phone remained busy, leading to disputes. On the evening of the incident, the applicant, along with Vasudev God and Santosh Panika, consumed alcohol and said he was going to meet his girlfriend. Then he took Ratanesh Panika of the village on his motorcycle to Pangan River, asked him to leave, and later the deceased's body was found there on 18.09.2025. Subsequently, the applicant was arrested on 21.09.2025. 3. Learned counsel for applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case as there was love affair between applicant and deceased. He submits that there is no direct evidence against the applicant, all the prosecution witnesses are hearsay witnesses, the applicant has been implicated solely on the basis of memorandum statement. He further submits that there are total 16 witnesses, the applicant is in jail since 21.09.2025 and there is no likelihood of the trial to be concluded at the earliest as it has not yet commenced, therefore, considering all these facts, the applicant may be released on bail. 3 4. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, opposing the bail application submits that the cause of death was strangulation, the mobile phone of the deceased was seized from the applicant and the dead body of the deceased was recovered from the place where witnesses Vasudev and Ratnesh Panika had left the applicant to meet the deceased. Therefore, considering the nature of offence, the applicant does not deserve to be released on bail. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the nature and gravity of offence and the material collected and available on record against the applicant and also considering the fact that charges have not yet been framed and the trial has not commenced, this Court is not inclined to release the applicant on bail. 7. Accordingly, the present bail application stands rejected. 8. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) JUDGE Khatai