1 CGHC010311732026 2026:CGHC:35634 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 7412 of 2026 1 - Lakhma Kunjam S/o Late Boti Kunjam Aged About 39 Years R/o Village Kadampal, Rimanpara, P.S. Kirandul, District- Dantewada (C.G.) 2 - Mrs. Kume Kunjam W/o Lakhma Kunjam Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Kadampal, Rimanpara, P.S. Kirandul, District- Dantewada (C.G.) ... Applicants versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Kirandul, District- Dantewada (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant For Applicants : Mr. Kamlesh Patel, Advocate For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Saurabh Sahu, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 12.08.2026 1. This is the 3rst bail application 3led 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 in connection with Crime No. 48/2025 registered at Police Station - Kirandul, District- Dantewada, (C.G.) for the o:ence punishable under Sections 109, 64(2)(1) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 11.08.2025, Applicant No.1, namely Lakhma Kunjam, lodged an FIR stating that in the early morning of 10.08.2025, he heard his second wife, Somli Kunjam, crying and, upon reaching the spot, found her lying unconscious with a toothpaste tube inserted into her private parts by some unknown person. During the course of investigation, the police allegedly recorded the memorandum statements of the applicants and, on the basis thereof, implicated them in the alleged o:ence, alleging that owing to a property dispute between the two wives, the applicants entered into a conspiracy, strangulated the victim with a gamcha with an intention to render her unconscious and thereafter inserted the toothpaste tube into her private parts, believing that she would die. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, the applicants were arrested on 19.08.2025. Hence, the present bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated on the basis of suspicion and alleged memorandum statements, without there being any direct or legally admissible evidence connecting them with the alleged o:ence. It is submitted that Applicant No.1 is the husband of the victim, who is his second wife, whereas Applicant No.2 is his 3rst wife, and the prosecution has alleged that both applicants, owing to a matrimonial/property dispute, were involved in the commission of the alleged o:ence. However, Applicant No.1 himself lodged the FIR regarding the incident, as the victim is his second wife, and the allegations regarding their involvement subsequently 3 emerged during the course of investigation. He further submits that, from a perusal of the statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS, there is no speci3c assertion attributing the commission of the alleged o:ence to either of the applicants. It is further submitted that the entire prosecution case substantially rests upon the alleged memorandum statements of the applicants, which, in the absence of discovery of any incriminating fact pursuant thereto, cannot by themselves constitute substantive evidence against them. Most importantly, the victim, who is the prime and material witness of the prosecution, has already been examined before the learned Trial Court on 20.07.2026 and has not supported the prosecution case, rather, she has been declared hostile and has speci3cally deposed that she was asleep when the incident occurred and that she does not know who committed the alleged act, and even in her cross-examination by the prosecution, she denied the suggestion that the present applicants had committed the o:ence. Thus, the testimony of the sole material witness does not implicate the applicants in any manner and the very foundation of the prosecution case stands substantially weakened. He further submits that there is no other eyewitness to the incident and, out of the total 22 witnesses cited in the charge-sheet, only the victim (PW-1) has so far been examined, while the remaining 21 witnesses are yet to be examined, however, in view of the testimony of the victim, their examination is not likely to materially strengthen the prosecution case against the applicants. He also submits that the applicants have no criminal antecedents, and they are in jail 4 since 19.08.2025, the charge-sheet has been 3led and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicants. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application of the applicants and submits that the charge-sheet has been 3led before the competent Court. He further submits that the allegations against the applicants are serious in nature, as they are alleged to have entered into a conspiracy arising out of a dispute between Applicant No.1 and his two wives and, in furtherance thereof, assaulted and strangulated the victim with a gamcha, rendered her unconscious and inserted a toothpaste tube into her private parts, believing that she would die. It is further submitted that the applicants have been speci3cally implicated during the course of investigation on the basis of their memorandum statements and other material collected by the prosecution, and merely because the victim has not supported the prosecution case during her examination before the Trial Court, the applicants cannot claim acquittal at this stage, particularly when the trial is still pending and other prosecution witnesses are yet to be examined. He further submits that the alleged o:ence is grave and carries serious consequences, and the evidence of the remaining witnesses is yet to be appreciated in its entirety. Therefore, they are not entitled to be released on bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 5 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and the material available on record, this Court 3nds that the victim, who is the prime and material witness of the prosecution, has already been examined before the learned Trial Court on 20.07.2026 and has not supported the prosecution case, rather, she has been declared hostile and has speci3cally stated that she does not know who committed the alleged act, while denying the suggestion that the present applicants were responsible for the same. It is also not in dispute that Applicant No.1 himself lodged the FIR in respect of the incident involving his second wife, whereas the prosecution subsequently alleged the involvement of both applicants during investigation. Further the applicants have no previous criminal antecedents, the charge-sheet has been 3led in the present case, they are in jail since 19.08.2025 and trial is likely to take sometime for its conclusion, accordingly, without commenting on the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicants are entitled to be released on bail in this case. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicants is allowed. Let the Applicants – Lakhma Kunjam and Mrs. Kume Kunjam, involved in Crime No. 48/2025 registered at Police Station - Kirandul, District- Dantewada, (C.G.) for the o:ence punishable under Sections 109, 64(2)(1) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, be released on bail on furnishing personal bond with two sureties each in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- 6 (i) The applicants shall 3le an undertaking to the e:ect that they shall not seek any adjournment on the dates 3xed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (ii) The applicants shall remain present before the trial court on each date 3xed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of their absence, without suEcient cause, the trial court may proceed against them under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicants misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicants fail to appear before the Court on the date 3xed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against them, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iv) The applicants shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates 3xed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 351 of BNSS. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicants are deliberate or without suEcient cause, then it shall be 7 open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against them in accordance with law. 8. OEce is directed to provide a certi3ed copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan