1 2026:CGHC:9038 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 1808 of 2026 Santosh Soni S/o Dushyant Soni Aged About 27 Years (Wrongly Written As Santoshi Soni In The Impugned Order) R/o Mopka Chowk Jorapara Police Station Sarkanda District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House O5cer Police Station Tarbahar Bilaspur District- Bilaspur (C.G.) --- Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Sumit Shrivastava, Adv. For-Non-applicant : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, G.A. Hon’ble Shri Arvind Kumar Vema, Judge Order on Board 20/02/2026 1. This is the 9rst bail application application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrrik Suraksha Sanhita for grant of regular bail as he is in custody in connection with Crime No. 333/2024 registered at police station Tarbahar, District Bilaspur (CG) ) for the o;ence punishable under Sections 103, 238 and 3(5) of the BNS Act, 2023. 2. Prosecution case in brief is that a report was lodged by complainant V. Vinod Kumar alleging that his nephew Hariom Singh was beaten by Indrajeet Yadav, Suyash Singh Rajput and one other in the night of 24.10.2024 on account of some 9nancial dealings. Thereafter wife of complainant received a phone call at 12.30 midnight that his name is Digitally signed by JYOTI JHA Date: 2026.02.20 16:33:11 +0530 2 Indrajeet Yadav and stated that her husband did not return the Rs. 3,50,000/- taken from him. When she asked him about Hariom, the call was disconnected. After 5 minutes again she received a call and it was Hariom who informed that the accused/applicant are beating him as he was unable to return the money. The next morning, he was left near his residence in injured condition, he was shifted to hospital where during treatment he succumbed to the injuries sustained by him. On the basis of the FIR lodged against the applicant and the co-accused, he was arrested on 28.10.2024. 3. Contention of the counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the crime in question. He submits that the FIR has been lodged three days after the incident and it does not mention the name of the applicant. It is further submitted that the applicant was having business of giving the vehicles on hire and the deceased had taken the vehicle from him and neither he paid the amount nor the vehicle was returned. He submits that there is no eyewitness to the incident and the entire case of prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence. He further submits that nothing has been recovered from the possession of the applicant. Lastly, it is submitted that the applicant is in jail since 28.10.2024 and looking to the conduct of the prosecution it is clear that the trial will take time for its conclusion and therefore the applicant be released on bail. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent/State, on the other hand, has opposed the bail application and submits that there were 17 injuries found on the body of the deceased and the manner in which the deceased was beaten to death by the applicant and the co-accused 3 persons, he may not be released on bail. 5. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the case diary with utmost circumspection. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the rival submissions made by the parties, prima facie involvement of the applicant along with the co-accused persons in the alleged o;ence is evident. The manner in which they assaulted the deceased inDicting 17 injuries resulting to his death, though the FSL report does not support the blood stains found on the lathi, looking to the nature and gravity of the o;ence, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail. Accordingly, his bail application 9led under Section 483 of the BNSS is hereby rejected. However, the trial court is directed to expedite the trial as expeditiously as possible. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Jyoti