1 CGHC010352662026 2026:CGHC:41805 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 8411 of 2026 1 - Desai Kumhar S/o Jai Singh Kumhar, Aged About 42 Years R/o Kharkodh, P/s Pamgarhh, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 2 - Ram Narayan Prajapati, S/o Late Asharam Prajapati, Aged About 44 Years R/o Thakurdeva, Thana Masturi District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station - Pamgarh, District Jangir- Champa (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant(s) For Applicants : Mr. Awadh Tripathi, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Dr. Saurabh K. Pandey, Dy. Adv. General. Hon'ble Mr. Rakesh Mohan Pandey, Judge Order on Board 25/09/2026 1. The applicants have preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as they have been arrested in connection with Crime No.191/2026, registered at Police Station Pamgarh, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 103(1), 238 and 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 2. As per the prosecution case, the marriage of the deceased Jagdish Prajapati with the informant Divya Prajapati was solemnized in the year 2022 and they were blessed with a minor son. On 29.04.2026, the deceased along with his wife and minor son had gone to village Kharkhod to attend the marriage ceremony of the son of Desai Kumhar. At about 11:30 p.m., the deceased, who was allegedly under the influence of liquor, was lying beside his wife and minor son and was repeatedly placing his leg over the minor child. When his wife objected to the same, the deceased allegedly assaulted her by slapping her. Thereafter, the family members intervened and tried to pacify him, but he continued to abuse them. It is further alleged that the deceased thereafter went and lay down near the house of Nandu Kevat. At about 3:00 a.m., the present applicants allegedly went there, saw the deceased and gave him water. Thereafter, the deceased was found missing in the morning and despite search, his whereabouts could not be ascertained. On 03.05.2026 at about 2:30 p.m., the villagers informed the family members that the dead body of Jagdish Prajapati/deceased was lying behind the house of Dharam Kevat, near a wall, at village Kharkhod. Accordingly, Merg No.34/2026 was registered at Police Station Pamgarh and during the course of enquiry, Crime No.191/2026 was registered for the offence punishable under Section 103(1) of the BNS against unknown person. During investigation, statements of the informant/wife of deceased and other witnesses were recorded. The statement of the wife of the deceased also discloses the circumstances preceding 3 and following the incident and the involvement of the present applicants. The memorandum statements of the applicants were recorded, wherein they disclosed their involvement in the assault upon the deceased and stated that after the deceased was assaulted, he was left near a Neem tree and thereafter his dead body was shifted and concealed near the house of Dharam Kevat, between a pile of bricks and the wall. Pursuant to the memorandum of applicant No.1, a wooden stick allegedly used in the commission of the offence was seized, which was found to have blood stains. The post-mortem examination of the deceased was conducted on 04.05.2026, wherein fracture of the 3rd rib on the right side and the 3rd rib on the left side was noted, besides injuries to the patellae of both knees, which were found damaged and displaced from their respective positions. The investigation has been completed and the charge-sheet has been filed against the applicants. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submit that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the case. There is no previous enmity between the applicants and the deceased and the deceased had come to attend the marriage ceremony at the house of the applicants. It is further submitted that there is no eye-witness to the alleged incident and no evidence of last seen connecting the applicants with the deceased. It is also submitted that there is no specific motive attributed to the applicants for committing the alleged murder. Further, in the present case, the charge-sheet has already been filed and the applicants have been in custody since 05.05.2026. He also submits that as many as 20 prosecution 4 witnesses have been cited by the prosecution and therefore, the conclusion of the trial may take some time. On these grounds, learned counsel for the applicants prays for grant of bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bail and submits that the statement of the wife of the deceased has been recorded during investigation, wherein the circumstances leading to the incident and the role of the present applicants have been stated. It is further submitted that the present applicants were the persons who had last taken the deceased outside and thereafter, at about 3:00 a.m., had gone to him and given him water. No other person is shown to have entered the scene thereafter. Learned State counsel further submits that the applicants have made memorandum statements disclosing their involvement in the incident and pursuant thereto, a wooden stick having blood stains was seized from applicant No.1. It is also submitted that the post-mortem of the deceased was conducted on 04.05.2026, wherein fracture of the 3rd rib on the right side and the 3rd rib on the left side was found, apart from injuries/damage to the patellae of both knees, which were found displaced from their respective positions and the cause of death is due to multiple injuries to the body, resulting in hemorrhage to multiple organs and shock as a result of assault (homicidal). It is further submitted that the incident occurred on 29.04.2026 whereas the dead body of the deceased was recovered on 03.05.2026, which is a significant intervening period requiring proper appreciation of the circumstances during trial. Learned State counsel submits that the 5 prosecution has cited 20 witnesses and their examination is yet to commence and therefore, at this stage, the evidence cannot be subjected to detailed appreciation. Hence, the applicants are not entitled to bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary as well as the material available on record. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of the offence alleged against the applicants and the material collected during investigation, this Court finds that there are circumstances prima facie connecting the applicants with the commission of the alleged offence. The statement of the wife of the deceased, recorded during investigation, discloses the circumstances preceding and following the incident and attributes involvement to the present applicants. It is further alleged that the applicants were the last persons who took the deceased outside and thereafter, at about 3:00 a.m., went to him and gave him water. The deceased was thereafter found missing and his dead body was recovered on 03.05.2026, whereas the incident is stated to have occurred on 29.04.2026. The said circumstances, coupled with the fact that the applicants are alleged to have disclosed their involvement in their memorandum statements and that pursuant thereto, a wooden stick having blood stains was seized from applicant No.1, require consideration at the stage of bail. 7. The post-mortem examination conducted on 04.05.2026 further records fracture of the 3rd rib on the right side and the 3rd rib on the 6 left side, besides injuries/damage to the patellae of both knees, which were found displaced from their respective positions and the cause of death is due to multiple injuries to the body, resulting in hemorrhage to multiple organs and shock as a result of assault (homicidal). The aforesaid injuries, when considered along with the other circumstances emerging from the investigation, cannot be brushed aside at this stage. The mere fact that there is no eye- witness to the alleged occurrence also cannot, by itself, be a ground for grant of bail when the prosecution case is based upon circumstances collected during investigation which prima facie connect the applicants with the alleged offence. 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Karnataka v. Sri Darshan & Ors., 2025 INSC 979, has reiterated that the Court dealing with a bail application is required to consider the material collected during investigation for the purpose of determining whether a prima facie case exists and that the fact that the prosecution case rests on circumstantial evidence cannot, by itself, be a ground to release the accused on bail where the material collected during investigation prima facie establishes a chain of circumstances. At the same time, the Court is not required to undertake a detailed appreciation of evidence or assess the credibility and reliability of the prosecution witnesses at the stage of bail, as the same is to be examined during trial. 9. In the present case, the prosecution has cited 20 witnesses, whose examinations are yet to commence. Therefore, without making any 7 observation on the ultimate evidentiary value of the material collected during investigation, this Court finds that, at this stage, the circumstances appearing against the applicants cannot be said to be insufficient to constitute a prima facie case. Having regard to the nature and gravity of the offence, the material collected during investigation and the totality of the circumstances, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the applicants. 10. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicants, involved in Crime No.191/2026, registered at Police Station Pamgarh, District Janjgir- Champa (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 103(1), 238 and 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023., is hereby rejected. - S/- Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Kunal