1 CGHC010252642026 2026:CGHC:39297 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 5910 of 2026 Order reserved on 02.09.2026 Order pronounced on 08.09.2026. Babulal Sahu S/o- Shri Ramlal Sahu, aged About 55 Years R/o- Village Jaijaipur, Thana and Tahsil Jaijaipur, District- Sakti (C.G.) ... Applicant (s) versus The State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station- Malkharouda, District- Sakti (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant (s) : Mr. Sunil Sahu, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Sunita Manikpuri, Govt. Advocate 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 applicant who has been arrested on 10.06.2026 in connection with Crime No. 211/2026 registered at Police Station- Malkharoda, SANTOSH KUMAR SHARMA Digitally signed by SANTOSH KUMAR SHARMA Date: 2026.09.09 10:35:00 +0530 2 District Sakti (CG) for the offence punishable under Sections 103(1), 331(8), 309(2), 238, 317(2), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that Dehati Nalshi at the instance of cousin of the deceased was lodged stating that on 31.07.2024 at about 9.00 AM, Kamla Yadav @ Bangahin came to his medical shop and informed him that his uncle and aunt namely Magan Lal Gabel and Budhwara Bai Gabel neither came out of their house nor opened the door of his medical shop. Subsequently, he went to the house and saw that his uncle and aunt were lying dead on the bed at courtyard of that house and blood was oozing. Thereafter, he called the police in dial 112 and lodged the report against the unknown person under Crime No. 247 of 2026. It is also case of the prosecution that during investigation, the co-accused were arrested under Crime No. 211 of 2026 and their memorandums were recorded wherein they stated that they have committed murder of Magan Lal Gabel and Budhwara Bai Gabel and have also looted 15 tola silver anklet of Rs. 15,000/-, 5 gram of gold of Rs. 35,000/- which were melted and the same was sold to the present applicant thereafter the police registered the FIR and arrested the present applicant. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that applicant has falsely been implicated in the case and the entire story of the prosecution is fabricated and he has not committed any offence. The present applicant is 55 years of age and running a small jewellary shop in village Jaijaipur. The co-accused requested him for urgent requirement of money and also stated that the ornaments belong to them and on their assurance, 3 the present applicant purchased the ornaments and also gave certificate to them. He would further submit that the applicant has no knowledge with the fact that the ornaments which were sold to him are stolen property or arising out of heinous offence of commission of offence of murder. He would further submit that even if the prosecution story is taken as it is then there is no allegation of being involved in commission of murder of the deceased. He would further submit that in the wake of recovery of alleged looted valuable articles having already been effected, custodial interrogation of the applicant is not needed and he is in jail since 10.06.2026 and the charge sheet has not been filed and the applicant has no past antecedents of this nature and conclusion of trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion, therefore, the applicant may be granted bail. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposing the aforesaid submission made by learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the present applicant being instrumental with the offence in question, is involved in purchase of theft items and since the charge sheet has not been filed and the investigation is going on, as such there is possibility of seriously involvement of the applicant in crime in question cannot be ruled out, therefore, his custodial remand is necessary and would pray for dismissal of the bail application. 5. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the records with utmost circumspection. 6. Considering entire facts and circumstances of case, nature of offence, and looking to the gravity of offence and the manner in which the 4 offence has been committed and investigation has not been completed and also considering the submission of the State that there is possibility of involvement of the applicant in other crime arising out of the same crime number, this Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case where the applicant can be enlarged on bail. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected. However, liberty is granted to the applicant to revive the bail application after filing of the charge sheet. 7. 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