1 2026:CGHC:13674 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.Cr.C No.2265 of 2026 Anand Gupta @ Lala Gupta S/o Santosh Gupta Aged About 37 Years, R/o Sant Kanwar Ram Ward, Bhatapara, P.S. Bhatapara City, Distt. Balodabazar, Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. (Details Of The Applicant are Mentioned As Per The Charge Sheet) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through SHO Bhatapara City, Distt. Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant For Applicant: Shri Tessy Abraham, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State: Shri Akhilesh Kumar, G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board 23.03.2026 1. This is the 1st bail application filed under Section 439/Cr.P.C/483 of the BNSS for grant of regular bail to the SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Digitally signed by SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Date: 2026.03.24 11:04:30 +0530 2 Applicant, who has been arrested in connection with Crime No.250/2024 registered at Police Station Bhatapara City, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara for the offence under Section 302/34 IPC. 2. As per the prosecution case, on 14.05.2024, the deceased Akhilesh Yadu went out at night with a local person and did not return. The next morning, his son identified him through a photograph shown by the police and upon reaching the spot behind Mata Devalaya Temple, found his body with a deep head injury and a cut wrist. Accordingly, offence under the aforementioned Section was registered against the present Applicant. Hence, this Application. 3. Learned counsel for the Applicant submits that the Applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the crime in question for which, he is behind the bars since 17.05.2024. It is contended that out of 6 witnesses, 3 have been examined, the alleged disclosure statement of the Applicant is not admissible in evidence except to the limited extent permissible under law. He lastly submits that trial is not likely to conclude in the near future, therefore, the Applicant may be released on bail. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Non-Applicant/State opposed the bail application and submitted that eye-witness namely M Kumar Patle has supported the case of the prosecution and on the basis of the memorandum statement of 3 the present Applicant, a surgical blade used in the commission of offence has been seized, therefore, the Applicant is not entitled for grant of regular bail. 5. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the Applicant and upon perusal of the material available in the case diary, this Court is of the view that the accusations levelled against the Applicant are of a serious and grave nature. The Applicant is in judicial custody since 17.05.2024; however, mere length of detention at this stage, particularly in a case resting on material collected during investigation, is not sufficient to enlarge him on bail. Taking into account the nature of allegations and the evidence on record, this Court does not find it appropriate to grant bail to the Applicant. 6. Accordingly, the application is rejected. However, the concerned trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and make all endeavour to conclude the same within a period of 3 months from the receipt of copy of this order. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Priya