1 CGHC010311782026 2026:CGHC:41338 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 7858 of 2026  Shankar Nagwanshi S/o Shri Bodhan Nagwanshi Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Naveen Ghatgaon Police Station Lailunga, District- Raigarh (C.G.) ... Applicant versus  State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Lailunga, District- Raigarh (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Rajendra Patel, Advocate For Non-applicant : Mr. Kanwaljeet Singh Saini, Dy.G.A. Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order On Board 23.09.2026 1) The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No.53/2024, registered at Police Station : Lailunga, District : Raigarh (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 34 of IPC. Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2026.09.23 18:16:11 +0530 2 2) As per the prosecution story, complainant – Goverdhan Nagwanshi lodged a merg intimation at P.S. Lailunga on 11.02.2024 to the effect that his son Sanjay Nagwanshi left home on 10.02.2024 in morning and did not return home and thereafter, he came to know that his son was lying dead beside the house of co-accused Sulechand Nagwanshi and dead body of Sulechand’s wife was also recovered from the same place. 3) The FIR was lodged on the same date, and during the course of investigation, electric wire and nylon rope were recovered from the possession of Sulechand and he was taken into custody. He stated that when he returned to his house along with the present applicant, he found his wife and the deceased, Sanjay Nagwanshi, in a compromising position. He further stated that, under such circumstances, he committed the murder of his wife and Sanjay Nagwanshi, and the present applicant assisted him in the commission of the said crime. Subsequently, police arrested the applicant on 13.02.2024. 4) Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant did not participate in the commission of offence and he has solely been implicated on the basis of memorandum statement of co-accused Sulechand and assumptions of the police authorities. He further submits that though the applicant is languishing in jail since 13.02.2024, charge-sheet was filed way back in the year 2024 and charges were framed on 03.09.2024 but no witness has been 3 examined till date. He also submits that it is right of the applicant to have a speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution. He has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sahil Manoj Machare Versus State of Maharashtra1 and Pardeep Kumar Banu Versus State of Punjab2 . He prays to allow this bail application. 5) On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would oppose. He submits that applicant assisted the co-accused Sulechand in commission of the afore-stated offence, therefore, the application is liable to be rejected. 6) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 7) From a perusal of the case diary, it appears that applicant is languishing in jail since 13.02.2024 and charges were framed on 03.09.2024 but no witness has been examined till date. Recently, Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Pardeep Kumar (supra), enlarged the appellant therein on bail, holding that incarceration without trial amounts to punishment. The Court took note of the fact that the appellant had undergone pre-trial detention for nearly two years, during which none of the 23 prosecution witnesses cited to substantiate the charges had been examined. 1. 2026 SCC OnLine SC 810 2. 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 302 4 8) Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sahil Manoj Machare (supra) held that prolonged incarceration without progress in trial violates the fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. Relevant paragraphs 5 to 7 read as under :- “5. In such circumstances, referred to above, are left with no other option but to say that the right of the accused to have a speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution could be said to have been infringed. 6. We are mindful of the fact that the petitioner is charged with the offence of murder but time and again, we have said that howsoever serious the crime may be, if the right of speedy trial is infringed, then Court must consider appropriately. the plea for bail. 7. Here is a case wherein past almost 4 years, the petitioner is in jail but not a single witness has been examined.” 9) Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of allegations, and the material available on record, particularly the fact that no witness has been examined till date, the applicant has no previous criminal antecedents and he is in jail since 13.02.2024, this Court is of the view that the present applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 10) It is directed that in the event of the applicant executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court, he shall be released on bail on the following conditions:- 5 (a) he shall make himself available for interrogation by the police officer as and when required; (b)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; and (c) he shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to a fair and expeditious trial. The observation made hereinabove is for the purpose of deciding this bail application only, the learned trial Court shall decide the case on its own merits. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE A j i n k y a