1 CGHC010240162026 2026:CGHC:40422 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 6110 of 2026 1 - Jairam Dhruv S/o Bishesar Dhruv Aged About 26 Years R/o Ram Nagar, Gudiyari, Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.) --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Mandir Hasaud, Distt- Raipur (C.G.) --- Respondent(s) For Applicant : Shri Vikas Pandey, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Shri Kanwaljeet Singh Saini, Dy.G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 16.09.2026 Heard. 1) The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No.52/2023, registered at Police Station Mandir Hasaud, District – Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. NIRMALA RAO 2 2) As per the case of the prosecution, on 16.6.2021, Rajeshwar Sahu was killed by the present applicant and two other co-accused persons, namely, Jamman Sahu and Deenu @ Dineshwar Bangali, as there was some dispute between Deenu and the deceased. Though the dead body was recovered on 16.6.2021, the FIR was lodged on 24.1.2023, and the applicant was arrested on 23.1.2025. On the basis of the memorandum statement of co-accused Jamman Sahu, the present applicant was arrested. 3) Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that there is no material available in the charge-sheet against the present applicant and that he has been implicated in this case only on the basis of the memorandum statement of Jamman Sahu. It is also argued that, out of 20 witnesses, only 5 witnesses have been examined so far and that the applicant is in jail since 23.1.2025. Therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the present applicant. 4) On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that there was a dispute between the deceased and the accused persons with regard to the theft of a mobile phone and the deceased's alleged affair with the sister of Deenu. Therefore, the accused persons, with common intention, committed the murder of the deceased. He further submits that one of the co-accused persons is still absconding and, therefore, the application deserves to be dismissed. 5) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 3 6) Having considered the fact that the applicant has already been acquitted in one criminal case, that there is no direct evidence against him, that the investigation was completed way back in the year 2022, that the applicant is in jail since 23.1.2025, and that, out of 20 witnesses, only 5 witnesses have been examined so far, I am inclined to grant regular bail to the present applicant. 7) Accordingly, the bail application filed by applicant is allowed and it is directed that in the event of the applicant executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety to the satisfaction of the concerned Trial Court, he shall be released on bail, on following conditions :- (i) he shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such fact to the Court, (ii) he shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial, and (iii) he shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to him by the said Court till disposal of the trial, (iv) he shall not involve himself in any offence of similar nature in future. The observations made in the course of this order are only for considering the case of the applicant on the application for grant of regular bail. The concerned trial Court shall not be influenced or bound by the observations made in the course of this order. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi