1 CGHC010307942026 2026:CGHC:39960 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 8462 of 2026 Govinda Kosle S/o Rajendra Kosle, Aged About 28 Years R/o Ambedkar, Chowk Village Sarkhor, District- Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) Due To Inadvertence, District Name Mentioned As Balodabazar In Lower Court Cause Title) --- Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Lavan, District- Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) Due To Inadvertence, District Name Mentioned As Balodabazar In Lower Court Cause Title) ---- Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Aditya Dhar Diwan, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Pandey, Dy.A.G. Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 11/09/2026 1. Applicant has filed this first bail application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No.170 of 2025, registered at Police Station – Lavan, District Balodabazar – Bhatapara (C.G.) for offence punishable under Section 137 (2), 103 (1), 238, 61 (2) and Section 3(5) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. Case of prosecution is that, Durga Dhritlahre, step mother of deceased lodged a report in the concerned police station stating that his son aged about 14 years is missing from the house. Based upon which, initially, mising report was lodged. During the course of investigation, BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Digitally signed by BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN 2 based on 2 the memorandum statement of the co-accused persons namely Mongra Ghritlahare and Meena Ghritlahare @ Rameshwari, applicant was arrested on 03.04.2025 for commission of alleged offences. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has not committed any offence and has been falsely implicated in the offence in question. He submits that applicant has been made accused only on the basis of memorandum statement of co-accused Mongra Ghritlahare and Meena Ghritlahare @ Rameshwari that they have hired applicant for causing murder of deceased. Co-accused persons Mongra Ghritlahare and Meena Ghritlahare @ Rameshwari have been released on bail in M.Cr.C. Nop. 7824 of 2025 vide order dated 06.10.2025 and in M.Cr.C. No. 6126 of 2025 vide order dated 26.08.2025 respectively. He submits that in the charge-sheet there is mention that in the CCTV footage, applicant has been shown to have paid money by two accused persons Mongra Ghritlahare and Meena Ghritlahare @ Rameshwari, have already been enlarged on bail. The applicant has no previous criminal antecedents. Applicant is in jail since 03.04.2025, out of 43 witnesses, only 16 witnesses have been examined since about one year and four months and trial is likely to take some time. Therefore, learned counsel prays for grant of bail to the applicant. 4. Learned counsel for State, opposing the submissions advanced by learned counsel for applicant, submits that in the CCTV footage, applicant has been identified accepting money from co-accused Mongra Ghritlahare and Meena Ghritlahare @ Rameshwari. In the 3 memorandum statement accused Mongara Ghritlahare has given statement that she has paid Rs.10,000/- in advance to applicant for committing the offence and remaining amount is to be paid. However, he do not dispute the submission that other co-accused Mongra Ghritlahare and Meena Ghritlahare @ Rameshwari have been enlarged on bail by this Court. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. Taking into consideration facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of evidence and the fact that the applicant has been in custody since 03.04.2025 and further considering the fact that co-accused Mongra Ghritlahare and Meena Ghritlahare @ Rameshwari have been released on bail by this Court, without commenting anything on merits of the case, I am inclined to allow the bail application. 7. Accordingly, bail application is allowed. It is directed that the applicant shall be released on regular bail, upon furnishing a bail bond in the sum of ₹ 25,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court on the conditions that- (a) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (b) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through him counsel. In case of him absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. 4 (c) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (d) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 351 of BNSS. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. 8. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Balram