1 2026:CGHC:14506 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 2847 of 2026  Pustam Singh Sidar S/o Late Rajan Singh Sidar Aged About 44 Years R/o Village- Dongadarha, Simanpara, Chowki Kolhenjhariya, Thana- Tumla, District- Jashpur (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus  State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Chowki- Kolhenjhariya, Police Station- Tumla, District- Jashpur (C.G.) ---Non-applicants For applicant : Mr. Jitendra Kumar Saxena, Advocate. For-Non-applicants : Mr. Vivek Mishra, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Arvind Kumar Vema, Judge Order on Board 27/03/2026 1. The applicants has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. in connection with Crime No. 18/2025, registered at Police Station Tumla, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh for the offences punishable under Sections 103(1), 49 of BNS 2023 and Section 4, 5 & 10 of Tonahi Harassment Prevention Act. 2. The prosecution story in brief, is that, on 01/04/2025 at around 8.30 AM the complainant namely Uttam Sidar left home for a mechanic shop at Kotba for repairing of his vehicle and thereafter at around 10.30 AM when he reached home at Dongadraha, he asked his younger daughter about his wife Prabhawati Sidar and again left for Village Kotba, thereafter at about 12.15 PM his younger daughter Digitally signed by JYOTI JHA Date: 2026.03.27 14:48:57 +0530 2 called him and informed that his wife is lying near the water tank in a pool of blood. On hearing the same the complainant immediately reached to Dongadraha and found the dead body of his wife and there was a deep cut/wound present on the right cheek on the right side of the neck. Thereafter, he rushed to the hospital wherein the wife of the complainant was declared dead by the doctors. Consequently, an FIR was registered on 02/04/2025. Thereafter, the present applicant was arrested the offence under section 103(1), 49, of B.N.S.2023 and Section 4,5,&10, Tonahi Harassment Prevention Act. 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 or cogent evidence available on record to connect the present applicant with the alleged o:ence. The entire case of the prosecution rests on circumstantial evidence, which is weak in nature. It is contended that no eyewitness to the incident has been cited by the prosecution and no seizure has been made from the possession of the applicant. The statements of the prosecution witnesses do not disclose any role of the applicant, nor do they indicate any act of abetment or instigation attributable to the applicant. Learned counsel further submits that the applicant is in judicial custody since 02.04.2025, and the charge-sheet has already been <led. It is also argued that the co-accused persons, namely Sanrakhu @ Larha and Geeta Sidar, have already been enlarged on bail by the Hon’ble High Court in MCRC No. 9646/2025 and MCRC No. 158/2026, and the case of the present applicant stands on similar footing, hence, he is entitled to bail on the ground of parity, therefore the applicant may be released on bail 4. Learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the applicant is involved in a grave and heinous offence wherein the deceased suffered fatal injuries, and the material collected during investigation prima facie establishes the involvement of the applicant; it is contended that though the case is based on circumstantial evidence, the same forms a complete chain pointing towards the guilt 3 of the applicant, and at this stage, such evidence cannot be disbelieved. Hence, the applicant does not deserve to be enlarged on bail and the application is liable to be rejected. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary produced by the learned counsel for the State. 6. On perusal of the case record, it is evident that the applicant is the main accused, against whom there are speci<c allegations of having assaulted the deceased with a sharp-edged weapon (tangi/axe), resulting in her death. The nature of the o:ence is grave and heinous, and the material available on record prima facie indicates the involvement of the applicant. Considering the seriousness of the allegations, the manner of commission of the o:ence, and the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the applicant. Accordingly, the bail application stands rejected. 7. However, this Court hope and trust that the trial Court shall make an earnest endeavour to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible, if there is no legal impediment. 8. OAce is directed to provide a certi<ed copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Jyoti