1 CGHC010325942026 2026:CGHC:38125 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 7804 of 2026 Sanjay Kujur S/o. Q. Kujur, Aged About 43 Years Caste Uraon, R/o. Sarga Chowki Kerju Police Station Sitapur, Distt. Surguja (C.G.) Presently Residing At Bitantola, Post Potegaon, Police Station Gadhchirouli, District Gadhchirouli Maharashtra. ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer Of Police Station Sitapur, District Surguja (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Hariom Rai, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Sameeksha Gupta, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 25.08.2026 1. This is the First bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 123/2025 registered at Police Station – Sitapur, District Surguja (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 107 & 137(2) of the BNS. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the deceased, namely Suman Agariya, daughter of Sakundar Agariya, aged about 17 years, had been VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2026.08.31 12:00:31 +0530 2 in a love relationship with the present applicant, Sanjay Kujur, for about four years. It is alleged that on 03.11.2024, her prospective husband, Sahil, along with his family members, visited her house in connection with arranging their marriage, and Suman and Sahil had developed an affection for each other. After dinner, when Suman and Sahil were sitting outside the house in a small hut, the present applicant, Sanjay Kujur, who was allegedly her former lover, arrived at the spot and forcibly took Suman away. On 04.11.2024, Suman was found hanging from a Mahua tree at Hagri Bhadra in the village. Thereafter, an inquest was conducted and, on the basis of the circumstances revealed during the inquiry, an offence under Section 108 of the BNS was initially registered and investigation was taken up. Upon completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet has been filed against the present applicant for the alleged offence under Section 307 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has not committed any offence and has been falsely implicated by the police without there being any credible evidence against him. It is submitted that the applicant has been in custody since 01.04.2026 and is the sole earning member of his family. Learned counsel further submits that it is an admitted position that the applicant and the deceased were in a love relationship and, due to the said relationship, the deceased was not willing to marry Sahil, and it is contended that she committed suicide on account of the circumstances arising therefrom. It is further submitted that, upon coming to know that the deceased's marriage had been fixed with Sahil, the applicant had left the place and shifted to Maharashtra in search of employment and to pursue his career, and 3 therefore, he was not present at the place of occurrence. Learned counsel also points out that the alleged incident took place on 04.11.2024, whereas the FIR was registered only on 18.03.2025, after an unexplained delay of about four months and fourteen days. It is further submitted that the charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court and, therefore, no further custodial interrogation of the applicant is required. Learned counsel submits that even if the prosecution case is taken at its face value, the ingredients of the alleged offence are not made out against the applicant. The applicant is a permanent resident of the address mentioned in the bail application, has movable and immovable properties there, and there is no likelihood of his absconding or evading the course of justice. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the period of detention and the filing of the charge-sheet, the applicant may kindly be released on bail. The applicant is ready and willing to furnish adequate surety and abide by all the terms and conditions that may be imposed by this Hon’ble Court. 4. Learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the deceased was a minor girl aged about 17 years and, immediately prior to the incident, the applicant had allegedly forcibly taken her away when she was with her prospective husband. On the next day, she was found hanging from a tree. It is further submitted that the allegations against the applicant are serious in nature and the material collected during investigation prima facie indicates his involvement in the offence. The defence raised by the applicant involves disputed questions of fact, which are to be considered at the stage of trial. Therefore, considering the nature and gravity of the offence, the 4 applicant is not entitled to bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the allegations against the applicant, and the material available on record, it appears that the applicant is prima facie involved in the alleged offence. The applicant is alleged to have kidnapped the deceased, a minor girl aged below 17 years, subjected her to mental torture and instigated her to commit suicide, pursuant to which she allegedly committed suicide by hanging herself from a Mahua tree. It is further borne out from the record that the evidence in the case has already commenced. At this stage, the possibility of the applicant influencing the material witnesses or tampering with the prosecution evidence cannot be ruled out. The plea of innocence and false implication raised by the applicant are matters of defence, which can be considered only after appreciation of evidence during the course of trial. Having regard to the seriousness of the allegations, the age of the deceased and the manner in which the alleged offence has been committed, this Court is of the considered view that the applicant is not entitled to the benefit of bail. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant – Sanjay Kujur, filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, involved in Crime No.123/2025 registered at Police Station – Sitapur, District Surguja (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 107 &137(2) of the BNS, is rejected. 8. However, this Court hopes and trusts that the trial Court shall make an 5 earnest endeavour to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible within a period of further Six months from the receipt of certified copy of this order in accordance with law, if there is no legal impediment. 9. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice vaibhav