1 2026:CGHC:25336 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 5133 of 2026 Roshni @ Roshnil Lakda D/o Late Vijay Lakda, Aged About 19 Years R/o Village Chandni Chowk, Police Station- Kotwali- Ambikapur District- Surguja (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer Of Police Station Padmnabhpur, District- Durg Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For the Applicant : Mr. Sanjeev Sahu, Advocate. For the State : Ms. Dipeshwari Mahilwar, PL. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal, Judge Order on Board 22.06.2026 1. This is First Bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant, who has been arrested in connection with Crime No.437/2024 registered at Police Station –Padmnabhpur, District- Durg Chhattisgarh, for the offence punishable under Sections 296, 115(2), 351(2), 103(1), 61(2) of the BNS. 2 2. As per prosecution story in brief is that present applicant -Roshni alias Roshlin Lakda with intention of teaching her former boyfriend Chetan Sahu (deceased), a lesson, conspired with her boyfriend Kuleshwar Sahu and his friend Akash Deshlahre along with other associates namely Vicky Barle, Ajit Sagarvanshi, Prem Vishwakarma, and Prince Mahilange, to commit the murder of Chetan Sahu. In furtherance of the said plan, on the night of 29.12.2024 at about 08:30 PM, present applicant- Roshni Lakda called the deceased Chetan Sahu, on his mobile number 8827237139 and asked him to come near Ayushman Hospital, Civil Lines, Durg. Thereafter, Chetan Sahu reached the spot along with his friend Rohit Tandi on a motorcycle. It is alleged that upon seeing Chetan Sahu, accused- Roshni Lakda and the other accused persons, who were already present at the spot, started assaulting him with sticks and a cutter, and also assaulted Rohit Tandi. Rohit Tandi somehow managed to escape and save his life and from a short distance witnessed the incident. Due to the assault by the accused persons, the deceased sustained grievous injuries near his head and neck, and during the course of treatment, he succumbed to the injuries at the hospital. Based upon report, FIR was registered against the accused persons for the alleged offence/crime. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case, he has not committed any 3 offence as alleged against him. There are various contradictions and omission in the statement of eye-witness (PW-2/Rohit Tandi); further no recovery has been made from present applicant except mobile phone. Co-accused Vicky Barle urf Dadu has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 17.02.2026 in MCRC No.1266/2026. The applicant is in jail since 31.12.2024 and trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude, therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposed the bail application and submits that present applicant called the deceased Chetan Sahu on his mobile phone and asked him to come to the incident place, named FIR has been lodged against the applicant and further there is eye-witness of the alleged incident, ie, PW-2/Rohit Tandi, hence, applicant may not be enlarged on bail. She further pointed out that there are total 24 witnesses in this case, out of which, 20 witnesses have been examined before the trial Court. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of allegation, submissions of counsel for the parties, particularly the fact that present applicant called the deceased Chetan Sahu and asked him to come to place of incident, further considering 4 that this applicant is present on the spot at the time of alleged incident and there is eye-witness of the alleged incident, ie, PW- 2/Rohit Tandi, this Court is not inclined to release the applicant on bail. 7. Accordingly, bail application of the applicant is hereby rejected. However, looking to the detention period of the applicant, ie since 31.12.2024, trial Court concerned is directed to expedite the trial within a period of 04 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 8. It is made clear that any observation made by this Court in this order shall not affect the trial of the case. 9. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) JUDGE J/-