1 2026:CGHC:25805 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 5334 of 2026 1 - Hemsagar Mandavi S/o Hemant Kumar Dhruv, Aged About 20 Years, R/o Village Gujra, Tehsil Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (C.G.). ... Applicant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, P.S. Arjuni, District Dhamtari (C.G.). ... Respondent For the applicant : Mr. Prasoon Agrawal, Advocate For the State : Mr. Rohitashva Singh, Dy.G.A. (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Order on Board 24.06.2026 1. This is the First bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant in Crime No.126/2025 registered at Police Station Arjuni, District Dhamtari (CG) for the offences under Sections 103(1), 309(6), 310(3), 331(8), 238, 49, 61 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Sections 25 & 27 of the Arms Act. 2. As per the prosecution case on 01.09.2025 in the night at 2 O’ clock, five accused namely Dhan Raj, Upendra, Chetan Sahu, SOURABH PATEL Digitally signed by SOURABH PATEL Date: 2026.06.25 10:30:03 +0530 2 Kuleshwar Sahu and the present applicant entered the house of complainant to commit robbery and when the said act was resisted by the complainants’ husband Krit Ram Sahu, three accused have brutally assaulted him, due to which, Krit Ram died on the spot. Subsequently the FIR was lodged by the wife of deceased. During the course of the investigation, the applicant and other co-accused persons were arrested for the commission of the alleged offences. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that the memorandum witnesses, namely, Laxminarayan Sahu (PW-3) and Kanhaiya Lal Sahu (PW-4), have turned hostile and have not supported the prosecution case. It is also submitted that no incriminating article has been seized from the possession of the present applicant. Learned counsel further submits that the co-accused persons, namely, Somprakash, Sahdev Ratre and Devendra Ratre, have already been granted bail by this Court in MCRC Nos. 3844/2026 and 2650/2026, respectively. The applicant is in jail since 05.09.2025, till date out of a total of 20 prosecution witnesses, only 14 have been examined, and there is no immediate likelihood of conclusion of the trial, therefore, it is prayed that the applicant be enlarged on bail. 4. Per contra, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application and submits that there are a total of eight accused persons in the present case, out of whom three have already been granted 3 bail by this Court, as they were not alleged to have entered the house of the deceased at the time of the incident. He next submits that the present applicant had entered the house of the deceased and played an active and significant role in the commission of the alleged offence. He further submits that the wife of the deceased, who is an eyewitness to the incident, has identified the present applicant and has also made a statement against him during the Test Identification Parade (TIP). It is further submitted that a mobile phone and two currency notes of 100/- were seized from the possession of the applicant, ₹ therefore, at this stage, looking to the gravity of the offence, the applicant should not be enlarged on bail. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon consideration of the material available on record, particularly the specific role attributed to the present applicant, the fact that he is alleged to have entered the house of the deceased, and his identification by the eyewitness, Rashmi Sahu (the wife of the deceased), this Court is of the considered opinion that no case for grant of bail is made out at this stage. 6. Accordingly, the bail application filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 is rejected. 7. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information forthwith. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge $ourabh