1 CGHC010208072026 2026:CGHC:40658 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 5252 of 2026 1 - Smt. Bhagwantin Chouhan Wife Of Late Govind Chouhan Aged About 39 Years Resident Of Village Sarkanda Chowk- Bhawarpur, P.S. Basna, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh 2 - Sharvind Sagar Son Of Late Shatrughan Sagar Aged About 20 Years Resident Of Village Jamdi, P.S. Basna, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh 3 - Ku. Sapna Chouhan Daughter Of Hari Chouhan Aged About 18 Years Resident Of Village Sarkanda Chowk- Bhawarpur, P.S. Basna, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh ... Applicants versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Basna (Police Chowki Bhawarpur), District – Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Sudhir Kumar Sahu, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Sourabh Sahu, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Rakesh Mohan Pandey, Judge Order on Board 17.09.2026 1. This is the First bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicants arrested in connection with Crime No. 387/2025 registered at Police Station – Basna (Police Chowki Bhawarpur), District – Mahasamund (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 103(1) and 3(5) of the BNS. 2. While the deceased, his wife and children were coming from the street, five accused persons namely Bhagabatin, Sharveend, Sapna, Sumit and Gunja using filthy language, took the deceased RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 into the house and committed his murder by strangulation. Thereafter, the FIR was registered on the basis of the merg intimation on 25.09.2025 against the said five accused persons, out of total five accused, two were juvenile. Hence, this application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have falsely been implicated in the present case. He submits that out of 18 prosecution witnesses, only 8 have been examined. He would contend that the wife of the deceased who is an eye-witness has not supported the case of the prosecution. It is further submitted that two co-accused who are juvenile have already been granted bail by the Juvenile Justice Board on 01.01.2026. It is further contended that the applicants are in jail since 25.09.2025, and the trial is likely to take quite long time. Therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposed the submissions raised by learned counsel for the applicants and submits that serious allegation of committing murder is levelled against the applicants. He would submit that 10 prosecution witnesses are yet to be examined by prosecution. It is further submitted that there is direct evidence against the applicants establshing their involvement in commission crime. Therefore, the bail application deserves to be rejected. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, and having regard to the fact that the credibility of the evidence of the 3 prosecution witnesses cannot be assessed at this stage for the purpose of releasing the applicants on bail, as the same is required to be considered by the trial Court on merits, and further considering that there are eye-witnesses to the incident and that, out of 18 prosecution witnesses, 8 have been examined while 10 witnesses are yet to be examined by the trial Court, I am not inclined to grant bail to the applicants at this stage. Therefore, having regard to the gravity of the offence and the manner in which it is alleged to have been committed, the bail application is hereby rejected. 7. Let a certified copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rajshekhar