1 CGHC010334232026 2026:CGHC:39009 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 8245 of 2026 • Chandan Alias Sagar Sinha S/o Narottam Aged About 20 Years R/o Ward No 17 Riva P.S. - Mandir Hasaud, District Raipur (C.G.) Applicant(s) versus • State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station - Arang, District - Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Galib Dwivedi, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Himanshu Yadu, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Order On Board 03.09.2026 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Shuraksha Sanhita for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested on 12.03.2025 in connection with Crime No. 125/2025, registered at Police Station Arang, District Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 137 (2), 103(1), 61(2), 3(5) of the B.N.S. and Sections 25 & 27 of the Arms Act, 1959. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the mother of the deceased has lodged an FIR alleging that on faithful day i.e. 19.02.2025 at about 02:30 PM when her son deceased out from the MANISH YADAV Digitally signed by MANISH YADAV Date: 2026.09.08 17:33:43 +0530 2 bus and left that over-bridge, but he never returned back, therefore, an FIR against the unknown person for commission of offence under Section 137(2) has been lodged. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant is innocent person and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and he is falsely implicated in the present case. He would further submit that the charge-sheet has been submitted and the applicant is in jail since 12.03.2025. Thus, he would pray that the applicant be enlarged on bail. 4. On the other hand learned State counsel would submit that since the applicant is involved in a heinous offence and since the important witnesses has to be examined and at this stage if the evidence of the witnesses is ascertained, it will prejudice the case of either of the parties, therefore, she would pray for rejection of the bail application. 5. The record of the case would demonstrate that the 7 witnesses out of 19 witnesses have been examined, but the vital witnesses which are necessary for deciding the trial i.e. witness of Forensic Science report and Cyber Cell report has not been examined, as such, at this stage it will not be proper for this Court to consider the bail application, accordingly, the bail application is rejected. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Manish