1 2026:CGHC:23708 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.Cr.C No.3720 of 2026 Bhojraj Manikpuri S/o Panchram Manikpuri Aged About 26 Years Village - Jalpur, Post Kendua, Police Station - Saraipali, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station - Baloda, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh ... Non-applicant For Applicant :Mr. Kishore Narayan, Advocate. Non-Applicant/State :Mr. Sumit Singh, Dy. A.G. Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Order on Board 15.06.2026 1. This is the 1st bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Digitally signed by SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Date: 2026.06.16 11:04:52 +0530 2 the Applicant, who has been arrested in connection with Crime No.31/2025 registered at Police Station – Baloda for the offence under Sections 238 and 103 of BNS. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 22.03.2025, upon receiving information regarding an unidentified female dead body lying near a waterfall at Shishupal Parvat, investigation was carried out and the deceased was identified as Khirbai, wife of the present Applicant. It is alleged that due to matrimonial disputes and suspicion regarding the deceased's character, the Applicant took her to Shishupal Parvat and pushed her from a rocky height, causing her death and thereafter attempted to conceal the offence by leaving the body at the spot. Based on the above allegations, the aforesaid offences have been registered against the present Applicant. Hence, this application. 3. Learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that the Applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that there is no direct evidence against the present Applicant and he is behind the bars since 24.04.2025, the trial is likely to take quite some time for its conclusion, therefore, he may be enlarged on bail. 4. Per contra, learned State Counsel opposed the bail application and submitted that there is circumstantial evidence against the Applicant, who is the husband of the deceased. It is argued that 3 the memorandum statement, call detail records and tower location data indicate that both the Applicant and the deceased were present near the place of occurrence. It was further submitted that material prosecution witnesses are yet to be examined by the trial Court, therefore, the Applicant does not deserve to be enlarged on bail. 5. Having considered the submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties and the facts and circumstances of the case, further considering the circumstantial evidence, the nature and gravity of offence, without further commenting anything on the merits of the case, I am not inclined to release the Applicant on regular bail. 6. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected. Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Priya