1 CGHC010271752026 2026:CGHC:31005 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 6498 of 2026 • Murti Bai Rajwade W/o Late Sopadi Lal Rajwade Aged About 37 Years R/o Gram Maani, Tahsil And District Surajpur Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus • State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Surajpur, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Parth Kumar Jha, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Rohitasava Singh, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board 21.07.2026 1. The accused/applicant has moved this Second bail application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 for releasing him on regular bail during trial in connection with Crime No. or releasing her on regular bail during trial in connection with Crime No. 521/2025 registered at Police Station – Digitally signed by AMIT PATEL 2 Surajpur, District – Surajpur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 103(1) of IPC. 2. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected on merits by this Court vide order dated 17.03.2026, passed in MCRC No.2149/2026. 3. The prosecution story, in short, is that the deceased, Sopadi Lal Rajwade, lived with his wife, Murti Bai (appellant/accused), daughter Priya Rajwade, and son Sameer Rajwade. On 05.08.2025, Sopadi Lal returned home at 10 pm and had a quarrel with his wife. The next morning i.e., 06.08.2025 at about 5:00 am, while Sopadi Lal was sleeping, his wife/applicant allegedly poured petrol on him and set him on fire using a matchstick. Thereafter, Sopadi Lal was treated in Surajpur and Ambikapur, but he died on the way to Raipur. The investigation revealed that the accused/applicant and the deceased had a quarrels on the previous night, and the appellant/accused was arrested and a case under Section 103(1) of the BNS has been registered against her. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that at the time when the first bail application was dismissed on merits by this Court, only 6 out of the 13 prosecution witnesses had been examined. Thereafter, the trial has substantially progressed and as on date, 11 out of the 13 prosecution witnesses have been examined before the learned Trial Court. He further submits that the daughter- Priya Rajwade, aged about 16 years and the son- Sameer Rajwade, aged about 15 years, of the deceased Sopadi Lal and the applicant, have been 3 examined as PW-10 and PW-11 respectively and they have not supported the prosecution case. He further submits that one of the neighbours, namely Rukmen Rajwade (PW-3) has also turned hostile and has not supported the prosecution case. The applicant has no criminal antecedents and has been in jail since 28.09.2025 and the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude, therefore, considering the subsequent change in circumstances and the progress of the trial, the present applicant may be released on bail. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application and submits that PW-1- Rajaram Rajwade, father-in-law of the applicant, as well as the statements of the applicant's daughter and son, show that there were frequent quarrels between the applicant and the deceased, which establish the motive, therefore, at this stage, she should not be enlarged on bail. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the offence, the material available on record against the applicant and the stage of the trial, this Court does not find any change in circumstances to justify grant of bail, at this stage, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail. 8. Accordingly, the bail application filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 is rejected. 9. However, considering the fact that the applicant is in jail since 28.09.2025 i.e., about 09 months 23 days. It is an exceptional case, therefore, concerned trial Court is directed to expedite the trial as early 4 as possible preferably within a period of 03 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 10. 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 AMIT PATEL