1 CGHC010153752026 2026:CGHC:29476 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 3517 of 2026 1. Chumman Lal Verma S/o Krishna Verma Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Kopra, Police Station Panduka, District Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh 2. Surshyam Tarak S/o Gangaram Tarak Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Kopra, Police Station Panduka, District Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh ... Applicants versus • State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Panduka, District Gariyaband ... Respondent For Applicants : Mr. Mohammad Afroz Athar, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mrs. Sunita Manikpuri, GA Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Order on Board 13/07/2026 1. Heard. 2. The accused/applicants have moved this first bail application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023, for releasing them on regular bail during trial in connection with Crime No. 186/2024 registered at Police Station – Chhura, District – Gariyaband (C.G.) for the offence punishable under PRAKASH KUMAR Digitally signed by PRAKASH KUMAR Date: 2026.07.13 18:35:41 +0530 2 Sections 103(1) & 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as the, “BNS”). 3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the informant- Golu Vishwakarma, reported that Shiv Kumar Vishwakarma (deceased) had died due to drowning. However, the Post Mortem Report revealed that the deceased had died due to strangulation and opined that the death was homicidal in nature. Consequently, FIR No. 186/2024 was registered under Section 103(1) of the BNS against unknown persons. It is alleged that the applicants were subsequently arrested on the basis of their memorandum statements, wherein they allegedly confessed to having strangulated the deceased with a scarf due to previous enmity. Based on the said memorandum statements, the applicants were arrested in the present case. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the case. He submits that the FIR was initially registered against unknown persons. During the course of investigation, a motorcycle was allegedly seized on the basis of the memorandum statements of the applicants; however, the independent witnesses have not supported the prosecution case. He further submits that there is no admissible evidence against the applicants. He also submits that the applicants have been in jail since 18.12.2024. Therefore, it is prayed that they be released on bail. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application. She further submits that, as per the memorandum statements of the applicants and other material available in the case diary, the applicants committed the murder of the deceased by throttling him and thereafter 3 threw his dead body into a pond. She further submits that some of the prosecution witnesses are yet to be examined. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the nature and gravity of the offence, and the materials available on record, I am not inclined to release the applicants on bail. 8. Accordingly, the bail application filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 is rejected. 9. Office is directed to sent a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Prakash