1 CGHC010324072026 2026:CGHC:41641 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 7828 of 2026 Tanya Goswami D/o Late Virendra Bharti Goswami Aged About 19 Years R/o Shriram Nagar, New Changorabhatha, P.S. Deendayal (D.D) Nagar, Dist.- Raipur (C.G.). ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh, through Station House Officer (S.H.O) P.S- Deendayal (D.D) Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.). ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Ashutosh Biswas, Advocate For Non-Applicant : Mr. Keshav Prasad Gupta, Government Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 25/09/2026 1. This First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been preferred by the applicant for grant of regular bail in connection with Crime No. 252/2026 registered at Police Station Deendayal (DD) Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) for offences punishable under Sections 103(1), 238, and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 27.09.2025, an altercation took place between father and daughters in their house. During the quarrel, the co-accused hit the deceased with a wooden washing paddle, while the present applicant struck him on the head with a brick. As a result, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the same. As per the post-mortem report , the death of the deceased was homicidal. The accused persons also allegedly tried to destroy evidence by washing bloodstains from the spot and disposing of their blood- NADIM MOHLE Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE Date: 2026.09.26 15:21:24 +0530 2 stained clothes. The applicant was arrested on 14.04.2026, and the brick was recovered at her instance. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant is a 19-year old, first year college student. She has no criminal antecedents, and she has falsely been implicated. He would further submit that the case of the prosecution depends solely on circumstantial evidence and delayed statements recorded after an unexplained delay of about 07 months. He would also submit that the fatal injuries were caused by the wooden weapon recovered from the co-accused, while the medical report has left the confirmation of human blood on the brick to the FSL report, which is still pending. Further, the juvenile co-accused was granted bail on 01.07.2026. He would argue that three witnesses have been examined before the learned trial Court and they have not supported the prosecution case. He would lastly submit that the trial will take time, thus, the applicant may be granted regular bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the alleged crime is heinous, as the deceased was the father of the applicant and was brutally killed inside his own house. He points out that the applicant failed to explain the unnatural death of her father. She offered an explanation that he had fallen in the washroom. The post-mortem report clearly contradicts this version, as it records as many as 16 injuries over the temporal, parietal, occipital, vertex, and other regions of the head. He further contends that during the merg inquiry, the applicant and the co-accused disclosed their involvement, stating that the applicant assaulted the deceased with a wooden washing paddle and a brick; the said weapons are recovered from their instance. He submits that though three witnesses have been examined, the credibility of their testimony cannot be evaluated at this stage. He emphasized that the applicant played an active role in the fatal assault and subsequently helped clean the crime scene to destroy evidence; thus, the applicant is not entitled to grant of bail. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 3 6. In the present case, the dead body of the deceased was found inside his own own house. The incident occurred inside a closed room, and thus, the applicant was under obligation to explain the incident and report the matter to the police or neighbours. Instead, she claimed that the deceased had fallen in the washroom, but as per post-mortem report there are 16 head injuries caused by hard and blunt objects and cause of death has been opined as homicidal. The case diary indicates that the applicant was not a passive bystander, but an active participant who struck the deceased with a brick, sharing a common intention with the co-accused. There is also prima facie material showing that she actively took part in screening the offence by washing the bloodstains and discarding the blood-stained clothes. 7. The plea of parity with the co-accused is untenable as the co-accused was granted bail by the competent authority under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act on reformative principles applicable to a child in conflict with law. Such benefit cannot be extended on parity to an adult accused facing trial before the regular court. Further, the applicant’s young age and student status cannot be considered sufficient grounds for grant of bail. 8. Considering the serious nature of the offence, the active role attributed to the applicant, and the overall material available in case diary, this Court does not find it a fit case for grant of bail. 9. Accordingly, the bail application filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 is hereby rejected. Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE Nadim