1 CGHC010360322026 2026:CGHC:41893 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 9081 of 2026 1 - Netram S/o Niranjan Sahu, Aged About 43 Years, R/o Silli, Police Station Fasterpur, Currently R/o Jhagarhatta, Police Station Mungeli, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station - Fasterpur, Setganga, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh (Details Correct Mention) ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Sandeep Yadav, Advocate For State : Mr. Rohitashva Singh, Dy.G.A. with Mr. Suresh Tandon, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order On Board 26.09.2026 1. This is the 02nd bail application filed u/s 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No.53/2025 registered at Police Station Fastarpur, Setganga, Distt. Mungeli, (CG) for the offence punishable under Sections 103(1), 309(4), 238, 61(2)(a), 3(5) of BNS. 2. The first bail application filed by the applicant was dismissed on merits by this Court in MCRC No. 3381/2026 vide order dated 15.04.2026. SOURABH PATEL Digitally signed by SOURABH PATEL Date: 2026.09.26 15:41:27 +0530 2 3. As per the prosecution case, on 10.09.2025 at approximately 9:00 p.m., the complainant, Hemchand Sahu, was using his mobile phone while his nephew, Hem Prasad Sahu, was consuming liquor by the side of Dabo Road. The applicant, along with other co- accused, arrived at the spot and assaulted them with an iron rod. The complainant somehow managed to escape and with the help of villagers, informed the matter to the Police over the phone. After sometime, the Police arrived and took him and Hem Prasad to the District Hospital, Mungeli, where Hem Prasad was declared dead. Based on the report of the complainant, an FIR was registered against the applicant and co-accused leading to the applicant’s arrested on 18.09.2025. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. It is contended that the FIR was registered against unknown persons and does not mention the name of the applicant. Furthermore, no Test Identification Parade (TIP) was conducted, and the eyewitness, namely, Hemchand Sahu, did not name the applicant. It is further submitted that there is no direct evidence against the applicant and that no incriminating article or weapon has been seized from his possession. Learned counsel further submits that the case of the applicant is similar to that of the co-accused, namely, one juvenile and Gaukaran Sahu, who have already been granted bail by this Court vide orders dated 11.03.2026 passed in CRR No. 266 of 2026 and dated 11.09.2026 passed in MCRC No. 8321 of 2026, respectively. He further submits that there are total 36 prosecution witnesses out of which only 09 has been examined so far, the applicant is in jail since 18.09.2025 and there is no 3 likelihood of the trial to be concluded at the earliest. Hence, considering all these facts, the applicant may be released on bail. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the applicant is the main accused in the case. It is contended that, as per the memorandum statement of the co-accused, the applicant had allegedly given a “Supari” (contract killing) to his brother-in-law (bhanja), Sunil Sahu, and his associates for eliminating one Narendra alias Pappu. However, they allegedly murdered Hem Prasad Sahu by mistake. It is further submitted that the co-accused has admitted to having received the amount paid as “Supari” (contract killing amount). Learned State counsel further submits that the vehicle used in the commission of the offence, i.e., a Bolero, has been seized from the possession of the applicant. It is also submitted that there are five accused persons in the case. Although the co-accused, namely, the juvenile and Gaukaran Sahu, have already been granted bail, their cases are distinguishable from that of the present applicant, as the applicant is alleged to be the main conspirator behind the commission of the offence. It is further submitted that the applicant has one previous criminal antecedent relating to an offence of cheating. Therefore, considering the gravity of the alleged offence and the role attributed to the applicant, learned State counsel submits that the applicant does not deserve to be released on bail. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the fact that the applicant has been in custody since 18.09.2025, i.e., for about one year, and that, out of 4 a total of 36 prosecution witnesses, only 09 witnesses have been examined till date and the trial is likely to take some time to conclude, therefore, this Court finds it appropriate to release the applicant on bail. 8. Accordingly, the 02nd bail application is allowed and the applicant is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the said Court as and when directed in that behalf. 9. The Registry is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) JUDGE $ourabh