1 2026:CGHC:9278 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 1324 of 2026 Amrish Kumar S/o Bhaggu Aged About 32 Years R/o Near Kasouli Shiv Mandir P.S. Chadwaval District- Mujaffarnagar (U.P.) ... Applicant versus The State Of Chhattisgarh Through SHO to P.S. Lakhanpur, District- Sarguja (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant: Shri Praveen Soni, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State: Ms. Sunita Manikpuri, G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board 23.02.2026 1. This is the 1st bail application filed under Section 483 of the BNSS for grant of regular bail to the Applicant, who has been SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Digitally signed by SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Date: 2026.02.24 10:41:00 +0530 2 arrested in connection with Crime No.46/2025 registered at Police Station Lakhanpur, District Surguja for the offence under Sections 103(1) and 238 of the BNS. 2. According to prosecution case, the Applicant is alleged to have murdered his wife Moni Nishad Raj on 11.02.2025 and thereafter burned her body in the Kunwarpur forest with an intention to conceal the offence. It is further alleged that in order to mislead the investigation, the Applicant lodged a false missing person report bearing No. 01/2025 on 14.02.2025 at GRP Shahdol, Madhya Pradesh. According to the prosecution, the dead body was subsequently recovered on the basis of a memorandum statement (Ex. P-05) allegedly given by the Applicant while in police custody. After recording the said memorandum and upon completion of preliminary investigation, the police of Police Station Lakhanpur, District Surguja (C.G.) has registered FIR against the Applicant for the aforesaid offences. Hence, this Application. 3. Learned counsel for the Applicant submits that the Applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the crime in question for which, he is languishing in jail since 25.02.2025. It is contended that the entire case is built on circumstantial evidence. He lastly submits that the charge-sheet has already been filed and the trial is not likely to conclude in the near future, therefore, he may be released on bail. 3 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Non-Applicant/State opposed the bail application and submitted that at the instance of the Applicant, the skeleton was recovered and out of 16 prosecution witnesses, 12 have already been examined. 5. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the Applicant and upon perusal of the material available in the case diary, this Court is of the view that the accusations levelled against the Applicant are of a serious and grave nature. The Applicant is in judicial custody since 25.02.2025; however, mere length of detention at this stage, particularly in a case resting on material collected during investigation, is not sufficient to enlarge him on bail. Taking into account the nature of allegations and the evidence on record, this Court does not find it appropriate to grant bail to the Applicant. 6. Accordingly, the application is rejected. However, the concerned trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and make all endeavour to conclude the same within a period of 4 months from the receipt of copy of this order. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Priya