1 2026:CGHC:15567 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 2826 of 2026 Kuleshwar Sahu S/o Late Dukhharan Sahu Aged About 19 Years R/o Ward No. 40, Civil Line Kasaradhi, Durg, Police Station Padmanabhpur, Tehsil And District Durg, C.G. (Details Of Applicant Is Properly Not Mentioned In First Page Of Impugned Order Sheet) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through - S H O, Police Station Padmanabhpur, District- Durg, C.G. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Avinash Chand Sahu, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Anish Tiwari, Dy. Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order On Board 06.04.2026 1. This is the first 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.437/2024 registered at Police Station Padmanabhpur, BHOLA NATH KHATAI Digitally signed by BHOLA NATH KHATAI Date: 2026.04.07 10:44:07 +0530 2 District- Durg (CG) for the offence punishable under Sections 296, 115(2), 351(2), 103(1), 61(2), 3(5) of BNS. 2. As per the prosecution case, co-accused, Roshni alias Roshlin Lakda, with the intent to teach her former boyfriend, deceased Chetan Sahu, a lesson, conspired with her current lover Kuleshwar Sahu (the applicant) and his associates to murder him. On the night of 29.12.2024, at approximately 8:30 pm, she called Chetan Sahu on his mobile number and lured him to the vicinity of Ayushman Hospital near Civil Lines, Durg. When the deceased, Chetan Sahu, arrived at the scene on a motorcycle with his friend Rohit Tandi, the accused persons immediately assaulted them with sticks and cutters. While Rohit Tandi managed to escape and witness the incident from a distance, Chetan Sahu sustained grievous injuries to his head and neck during the assault. He subsequently succumbed to his injuries while undergoing treatment at the hospital. On report being lodged in this regard, FIR was registered against the applicant and co-accused for the said offence. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He submits that no weapon was seized from the applicant and the allegation of assault is against co-accused Roshni Lakra and Akash Deshlahara. He submits that co- accused Vicky Barle @ Dadu has already been granted bail by 3 this Court vide order dated 17.02.2026 in MCRC No.1266/2026. He further submits that there are total 25 witnesses out of which only 10 have been examined, the applicant is in jail since 31.12.2024 and there is no likelihood of the trial to be concluded at the earliest, therefore, considering all these facts, the applicant may be released on bail. 4. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, opposing the bail application submits that the eye witness has specifically named the applicant as having assaulted the deceased with a stick and considering the nature of offence, the applicant does not deserve to be released on bail. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. There are total 7 accused persons, out of which four are majors and 3 are minors. The co-accused, Vicky Barle, was granted bail on the ground that his name did not appear in the FIR. Furthermore, no weapon was recovered from his possession, and his implication is based solely on the memorandum statements of other co-accused persons. 7. Taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the facts that there is direct evidence against the present applicant, eye witness Rohit has been examined before the trial Court who has supported the case of prosecution and the stick used in the incident has been seized from the applicant, without commenting anything on the merits 4 of the case, this Court is not inclined to release the applicant on bail. 8. Accordingly, the present bail application stands rejected. 9. However, considering the fact that the applicant is in jail since 31.12.2024, the Trial Court is directed to ensure that the trial is concluded as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of 5 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 10. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) JUDGE Khatai