1 CGHC010369822026 2026:CGHC:42834 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 8840 of 2026  Damar Singh Sahu @ Domar Sahu S/o Rama Sahu Aged About 40 Years R/o Village- Lavatara Police Station Berla, District- Bemetara (C.G.) ... Applicant versus  State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Police Station Berla, District- Bemetara (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Raj Kumar Pali, Advocate For State : Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, Dy. Advocate General Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 01.10 .2026 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 02/2025 registered at Police Station Berla, District Bemetara (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 103(1) of BNS. 2. As per case of prosecution, an FIR was lodged on 01.01.2025 by the applicant against unknown person, wherein he stated that on 01.01.2025 at about 10:30 am while he was moving to house of his younger brother Sanat Kumar Sahu to offer prayer, he found dead body of his brother on fire. He called neighbours and family members, and thereafter, body of his younger SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2026.10.05 10:58:21 +0530 2 brother was taken out from fir. On such complaint, police registered offence punishable under Section 103(1) of BNS against unknown person. After 14 months, brain mapping test and polygraph tests were conducted and present applicant admitted his guilt. Memorandum statement of applicant was recorded and on his instance blood stained shirt and shovel was recovered. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant would argue that there is no evidence against the present applicant in the charge-sheet. It is also argued that on the basis of polygraph and brain mapping tests, the applicant has been implicated in the case. It is argued that result of both tests are not admissible in evidence. It is also argued that tests were conducted after 14 months of the incident. He would contend that as charge-sheet has already been filed and applicant is in jail since 23.02.2026, this application may be allowed. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would oppose. Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, Dy. Advocate General would submit that polygraph and brain mapping tests were conducted after obtaining due permission from the learned Trial Court. He would submit that in brain mapping test, the applicant has stated that in a fit of anger, he killed his brother and put his body over straw and set it on fire. He would submit that there is sufficient evidence against the present applicant, therefore, this application deserves to be rejected. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Having considered the fact that in brain mapping test, the applicant has stated that there was altercation between applicant and the deceased and in a fit of anger, he killed him, put his body over straw, and set it on fire; after conducting the polygraph test, on instance of applicant a blood stained shirt 3 and a shovel was recovered. Further, admissibility of polygraph and brain mapping tests cannot be considered at this stage, therefore, I am not inclined to allow this application . 7. Accordingly, instant bail application is hereby rejected. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE $iddhant