1 CGHC010348192026 2026:CGHC:39897 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 8321 of 2026 Gaukaran Sahu S/o Parasram Sahu Aged About 20 Years R/o Bade Pauni, P. S. Fasterpur Setganga, District Mungeli, C.G. ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer, P.S. Fasterpur, District Mungeli, C.G. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Ashish Tiwari, Advocate For State/Respondent : Mr. Rohitasva Singh, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order On Board 11/09/2026 1. This is the first bail application filed u/s 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No.53/2025 registered at Police Station - Fasterpur, Setganga, Distt. Mungeli, (CG) for the offence punishable under Sections 103(1), 309(4), 238, 61(2)(a), 3(5) of BNS,2023. 2. As per the prosecution case, on 10.09.2025 at approximately 9:00 p.m., the complainant, Hemchand Sahu, was using his mobile PRASHANT DEWANGAN Digitally signed by PRASHANT DEWANGAN Date: 2026.09.11 17:38:14 +0530 2 phone while his nephew, Hem Prasad Sahu, was consuming liquor by the side of Dabo Road. The applicant, along with other co- accused, arrived at the spot and assaulted them with an iron rod. The complainant somehow managed to escape and with the help of villagers, informed the matter to the Police over the phone. After sometime, the Police arrived and took him and Hem Prasad to the District Hospital, Mungeli, where Hem Prasad was declared dead. Based on the report of the complainant, an FIR was registered. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. It is contended that, although the prosecution claims the case to be based on eyewitness account, the material available on record, in fact, comprises only circumstantial evidence against the applicant. No weapon has been seized from his possession. It is further submitted that, as per the memorandum statement of the co- accused, the motorcycle allegedly belonging to the present applicant was used in the commission of the offence; however, the said motorcycle has neither been recovered from the applicant nor at his instance. The FIR was initially registered against unknown persons and does not contain the name of the applicant. Furthermore, no Test Identification Parade (TIP) was conducted, and the alleged eyewitness, namely, Hemchand Sahu, has not named the applicant as one of the persons involved in the incident. No incriminating article has also been seized from possession of the applicant. Learned counsel further submits that one of the juvenile co-accused has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 11.03.2026 passed in CRR No. 266 of 2026. It is also 3 submitted that there are as many as 36 prosecution witnesses, out of whom only nine witnesses have been examined so far. The applicant has remained in judicial custody since 18.09.2025 and, having regard to the stage of the trial, there is no likelihood of its conclusion in the near future. Learned counsel, therefore, submits that, considering the aforesaid circumstances and the period of incarceration already undergone by the applicant, he may be enlarged on bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the applicant was involved in the conspiracy to commit the murder. It is contended that an iron rod used in the commission of the offence has been seized from the possession of the applicant and that the motorcycle allegedly used in furtherance of the conspiracy has been recovered from him. It is further submitted that, as per the memorandum statement of the co- accused, the main accused Netram allegedly provided 'Supari' (contract killing) to Sunil Sahu and his associates for eliminating one Narendra alias Pappu; however, they mistakenly murdered Hem Prasad Sahu. The co-accused has also admitted to having received the amount paid as 'Supari'. Learned State counsel submits that, having regard to the gravity of the offence and the nature of the allegations against the applicant, the applicant does not deserve to be enlarged on bail. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Having regard to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the fact that there is no direct evidence against the applicant, no incriminating weapon has been seized from his 4 possession, he has been in custody since 18/09/2025, i.e., for about one year, and out of the total 36 witnesses, only 09 witnesses have been examined so far, this Court is of the considered view that the trial is likely to take some time to conclude, therefore, this Court is inclined to release the applicant on bail. 7. 7. Accordingly, the application is allowed and the applicant is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the said Court as and when directed in that behalf. 8. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) JUDGE Prashant