1 CGHC010298512026 2026:CGHC:34146 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 7140 of 2026 Pawan Kumar Meravi S/o Sukhuram Aged About 33 Years R/o Village Singhari, P.S. Bodla, Distt.- Kabirdham, C.G. ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through- P.S. Kukdur, Distt.- Kabirdham, C.G. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Devesh Chandra Verma, Adv. For Respondent/State : Mr. Rohitashva Singh, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order On Board 05/08/2026 1. This is the second bail application filed under Section 483 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita Act 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with crime No. 52/2025, registered at Police Station – Kukdur, Distt.- Kabirdham (C.G.) for offence punishable under Section 103(1) of the BNS, 2023. 2. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected on merit by this Court on 15.07.2025 in MCRC No.5101/2025. BHOLA NATH KHATAI Digitally signed by BHOLA NATH KHATAI Date: 2026.08.06 10:44:19 +0530 2 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 18.04.2025 at about 7:00 a.m., the informant, Sukartein Markam, found her father-in-law, Kariya Markam, lying dead on a cot with a grievous head injury and blood stains at the spot. During the Merg inquiry, it was found that on the previous night accused Pawan and Jainbati had visited the house of accused Sukartin Bai, where Pawan demanded money and Rahar dal from the deceased for his sister's marriage. Upon refusal, a quarrel ensued, during which Pawan allegedly strangulated the deceased, rendering him unconscious. Thereafter, the accused persons allegedly dragged him to the granary, placed him on a cot, and applicant Pawan struck him on the head with a Farsa, resulting in his death. On the basis of the Merg inquiry, the present offence came to be registered against the applicant and two co- accused. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that there is no direct evidence against the applicant. It is contended that the prosecution witnesses examined so far has not supported the case of the prosecution. The independent witnesses, Ramprasad (PW-2) and Shanti Bai (PW-6), have deposed that when they reached the place of occurrence, the deceased was still alive and informed them that two unknown persons had come to steal paddy and, upon his refusal, assaulted him and fled from the spot. Bajru Singh (PW-1), the son of the deceased, also narrates a different story. Learned counsel further submits that co-accused, Jainbati and Sukartin Bai, have already been enlarged on bail by this Court and, therefore, on the ground of parity, the present applicant is also entitled to be released on bail. It is also submitted that out of 23 prosecution witnesses, only 10 witnesses have been examined till date, the 3 applicant has been in judicial custody since 25.04.2025, and there is no likelihood of the trial being concluded in the near future. Hence, it is prayed that the applicant be released on bail. 5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the bail application and submits that the role attributed to the present applicant is distinct from that of the co-accused who have already been granted bail. It is submitted that the applicant is alleged to have assaulted the deceased with a Farsa (axe), whereas the co-accused are alleged only to have facilitated the commission of the offence. It is further submitted that a blood-stained Farsa (axe) and blood- stained clothes have been seized from the possession of the applicant. Therefore, considering the nature and gravity of the offence and the material collected during investigation, it is prayed that the applicant is not entitled to be enlarged on bail. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the fact that the case of the present applicant stands on a different footing from that of the co-accused who have already been granted bail, inasmuch as a blood-stained Farsa (axe) and blood- stained clothes have been seized from the applicant, whereas no such incriminating weapon or material has been recovered from the co-accused and also considering the nature and gravity of the offence, and the material collected and available on record against the applicant, this Court is not inclined to extend the benefit of bail to the applicant at this stage. 4 8. Accordingly, the present bail application stands rejected. 9. However, considering the custody period of the applicant, the Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and to ensure that the trial is concluded as expeditiously as possible. 10. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Khatai