1 CGHC010330882026 2026:CGHC:42110 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 8087 of 2026 1 - Kanesingh Kange S/o Late Shri Ratan Lal Kange, Aged About 30 Years R/o. Village - Bhainsmudi, Police Out Post - Kachche, Police Station Bhanupratappur, Tahsil - Bhanupratappur, District - North Bastar Kanker (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through, Station House Officer, Police Out Post - Kachche, Police Station - Bhanupratappur, Distt. - North Bastar Kanker (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Shreyansh Pathak, Advocate For Non-applicant : Mr. Keshav Gupta, G.A. Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 28/09/2026 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. 123/2025, registered by the Police Station Bhanupratapur, District North Bastar Kanker (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 103(1) and 238 of BNS. 2. As per the prosecution case, on 19.07.2025 at about 11:20 A.M. the applicant allegedly assaulted his grandfather, namely, Digitally signed by JYOTI JHA Date: 2026.09.29 11:41:04 +0530 2 Shyamlal Konge, with a sharp-edged razor blade and caused an injury on his neck, resulting in his death. It is further alleged that, thereafter, with the intention of destroying the evidence of the offence, the applicant burnt the razor blade used in the incident. Accordingly, Crime No. 123/2025 was registered against the applicant for offences punishable under Sections 103(1) and 238 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that the applicant has not committed the alleged offence and that the allegations levelled against him are false and baseless. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the charge-sheet has been filed, the applicant is in custody since 19.07.2025, and conclusion of the trial is likely to take considerable time. Therefore, learned counsel prays that the applicant may kindly be enlarged on regular bail. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application and submits that there is an eye-witness, namely, Shyam Kumar, against the present applicant. It is further submitted that the razor used in the commission of the offence was seized from the possession of the applicant and that the present applicant committed the murder of his grandfather. Therefore, learned counsel submits that the applicant is not entitled to the grant of bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the 3 case diary. 6. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the fact that there is an eye-witness, namely, Shyam Kumar, against the present applicant, the weapon used in the commission of the offence was seized from the possession of the applicant, and the present applicant is alleged to have committed the murder of his 70-year-old grandfather, I am not inclined to grant bail to the applicant. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant is rejected. Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE Jyoti