1 2026:CGHC:26565 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 5703 of 2026 1 - Jainbati W/o- Pawan Maravi, Aged About 35 Years R/o- Village Singhari, P.S. Bodla, District- Kabirdham (C.G.). 2 - Sukartin Bai, W/o- Bajaru Ram Markam, Aged About 35 Years R/o- Village Badna, P.S. Kukdur, District- Kabirdham (C.G.). ... Applicant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- P.S. Kukdur, District- Kabirdham (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Devesh Chandra Verma, Advocate For Non-applicant : Mr. Rohitashva Singh, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order On Board 30/06/2026 1. Heard on admission. 2. Admit. 3. This is the second bail application filed under Section 483 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicants who have been arrested in connection with crime No. 52/2025, registered at Police Station – Kukdur, District- ARPAN SRIVASTAVA Digitally signed by ARPAN SRIVASTAVA Date: 2026.07.02 15:31:53 +0530 2 Kabirdham (C.G.) for offence punishable under Section 103(1) of BNS. 4. The First Bail Application of the applicants in MCRC No.5101/2025 was rejected on merits vide order dated 15/07/2025. 5. The prosecution case is that on 18.04.2025 at about 7:00 a.m., the informant, Sukartein Markam, found her father-in-law, Kariya Markam (deceased), lying on a cot with a head injury and blood stains near the cot. During the merg enquiry, it was alleged that co-accused Pawan had demanded money and rahar dal from the deceased for the marriage of his sister and, upon refusal, assaulted him. It is further alleged that after Pawan strangulated the deceased, the present applicants assisted him in dragging the deceased to the granary and laying him on a cot, whereafter Pawan inflicted a fatal blow on the head of the deceased with a farsa. On the basis of the said allegations, the present crime has been registered against the applicants. 6. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that no direct evidence both the applicants are ladies, no weapon has been recovered from their possession, and no specific overt act has been attributed to them. It is further submitted that the charge-sheet has already been filed and the prosecution witnesses examined so far have not supported the 3 prosecution case. The applicants are in judicial custody since 25.04.2025. Therefore, they deserve to be enlarged on bail. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that sufficient incriminating material is available against the applicants. It is further submitted that blood-stained clothes have been seized from their possession and, considering the nature and gravity of the offence, they are not entitled to be released on bail. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary as well as the material available on record. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the fact that after rejection of the first bail application the charge- sheet has been filed and there is no direct evidence against the applicants, no weapon have been seized from their possession, both the applicants are ladies, they are in judicial custody since 25.04.2025, (about 1 year 2 months) and the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude, this Court is of the considered opinion that the applicants have been able to make out a case for grant of regular bail. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am inclined to allow the present second bail application. 10. Accordingly, this bail application is allowed, and the applicants are directed to be released on bail upon each of them furnishing a personal bond in the sum of 20,000/- with one surety in the like ₹ 4 amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for their appearance before the said Court on each and every date as may be directed in that behalf. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Arpan