1 CGHC010272282026 2026:CGHC:37301 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 6430 of 2026 Order reserved on 11. 08. 2026 Order delivered on 20.08.2026 1. Smt. Asha Bai Sahu, W/o Chetram Sahu, Aged About 66 Years R/o Village Koripara, Kargi Khurd, Police Station - Kota District Bilaspur (C.G.) 2. Mrs. Brinda Bai Sahu, W/o Sahadev Sahu, Aged About 29 Years R/o Village Koripara, Kargi Khurd, Police Station- Kota, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Appellant (s) versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Kota, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant (s) : Mr. S.C. Verma, Sr. Advocate along with Mr. Mohammad Naqeeb, Advocates For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sanjeev Pandey, Dy. Advocate General. SANTOSH KUMAR SHARMA Digitally signed by SANTOSH KUMAR SHARMA Date: 2026.08.20 14:46:20 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas CAV Order 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS') for grant of regular bail to the applicants who have been arrested on 23.03.2026 in connection with Crime No. 227/2026 registered at Police Station- Kota, District Bilaspur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 103(1), 296,351 (3), 115(2), 190, 191(3), 331(7), 332 and 238 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that complainant Sharad Kaushik lodged the FIR bearing Crime No. 227 of 2026 in Police Station Kota stating that he along with Mohan Pandey went to native place of Mohan Pandey Kargi Khurd Koripara. It is also alleged that at about 9 AM, the applicant along with other co-accused with intention to commit his murder reached the house of Mohan Pandey armed with lathi, danda and brick stone where they started hurling abuses and called him outside of the house. When he refused to come out of the house, the accused forcefully entered into his house and assaulted him with brick stone, lathi and when he fell on the ground, the accused dragged him to the courtyard where they assaulted him with iron rod and tabble, on account of injury caused to the victim, he succumbed to death. It is also case of the prosecution, that the complainant tried to save the victim, then the accused also assaulted on the head of complainant with danda. Based on report, FIR under aforesaid sections was registered against the applicants. 3 3. Learned Sr. counsel for the applicants would submit that applicants have falsely been implicated in the case and the entire story of the prosecution is fabricated. He would further submit that trial Court has mechanically rejected the bail application without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case in its true perspective. Learned trial Court failed to consider that the basic rule of criminal jurisprudence is bail, not jail and relied solely on the gravity of the offence and without evaluating the evidence connected the applicants in the crime in question. He would further submit that FIR and the charge sheet contain general omnibus allegations against the applicants and there is no specific independent attribution of fatal blow to the victim. 4. Learned Sr. counsel for the applicants would further submit that even if the prosecution evidence is taken at its face value the medical evidence and the injuries sustained by the deceased do not constitute the specific roles attributed to the applicants. Learned Sr. Counsel for the applicants would further submit that the FIR, charge sheet and the statements of the witnesses reveal that there is no specific allegation, overt act attributed to the applicants with respect to the alleged commission of offence and the applicants are in jail since 23.03.2026, charge sheet has already been filed and the applicants have no past antecedents of this nature and conclusion of trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion, therefore, the applicants may be granted bail. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposing the aforesaid submission made by learned counsel for the applicants would submit that offence committed by applicant is grievous in nature and prima- 4 facie, involvement of the applicants at this juncture cannot be ruled out, therefore, the applicants are not entitled for grant of bail and would pray for rejection of the bail application. 6. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the records with utmost circumspection. 7. Considering entire facts and circumstances of case, nature of offence, statements of prosecution witnesses, submissions of counsel for the parties, particularly as per opinion of the doctor who prepared post mortem report of the deceased and looking to the gravity of offence and the manner in which the offence has been committed, this Court is of the opinion that it is not fit case where the applicants can be enlarged on bail. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected. 8. Office is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge santosh