1 2026:CGHC:16683 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 2780 of 2026 1 - Devnandan Rathiya S/o Panchram Rathiya Aged About 21 Years. 2 - Ramswaroop Sarthi S/o Late Madan Sarthi, Aged About 56 Years. Both are R/o Village Barpali, P.S. Gharghoda, District- Raigarh (C.G.) ... Applicants versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Officer - In Charge Police Station Gharghoda District- Raigarh (C.G.) ---- Respondent -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For the Applicants : Mr. Ashutosh Mishra, Advocate. For the State/Respondent : Mr. Sumit Singh, Dy. AG. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal, Judge Order on Board 10.04.2026 1. This is Second 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 on 24.09.2025 in connection with Crime No.257/2025 registered at Police Station- Gharghoda District- Raigarh (C.G.), for the offence under 2 Sections 103(1), 61(2), 49, 238, 3(5) of the BNS. 2. First bail application of applicants has been dismissed in default. 3. As per the prosecution case, complainant/informant (Surendra Prasad Chauhan) has lodge merg intimation that deceased Balram Sarthi is son-in-law of Ramswaroop Sarthi. On 21.09.2025, Balram Sarthi quarreled with his wife Hemlata Sarthi, therefore, mother of Hemlata Sarthi and other relatives went to the Village Gala and brought back Hemlata Sarthi alongwith her children to the village Barpali (her parental home), thereafter, deceased Balram Sarthi also came to the village Barpali following them. It has been further alleged that on 24.09.2025 at about 3.00 P.M. it was heard that the Balram Sarthi is lying dead in the varenda of Panchram Rathiya, thereafter, Sarpanch Ramkrishna Rathiya alongwith Surendra Prasad reached to the house of Panchram Rathiya where they found the deceased Balram Sarthi lying dead and it was also appeared that someone has assaulted the deceased by means of sharp object, as a result of which, deceased was died. On the basis of above mentioned intimation, the merg intimation was registered, post mortem of the dead body was conducted and the nature of death was found to be homicidal. Subsequently FIR was registered against the unknown person under Section 103(1) of B.N.S.. During the investigation, it was found that the applicants alongwith a child in conflict with law have conspired to 3 caused death of deceased and, thereafter, the applicants were arrested in the alleged crime/offence. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are innocent and they never committed any offence as alleged against them. The applicants have been falsely implicated in the case and there is no any criminal case against them. The First Information Report as well as the merg intimation report does not reveal the names of the present applicants. There is no eye witness to the incident and only on the basis of memorandum statement of the accused persons a false and fabricated story made by the prosecution. No such incriminating articles have been seized from the present applicants in order to show that the applicants were present at the time of incident and they have actively participated in crime in question. Applicants are in jail since 24.09.2025 and there is no immediate possibility of disposal of trial, therefore, applicants may be enlarged on bail. 5. Per contra, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application of the applicants and would submit that dead body of deceased has been found in the varenda (courtyard) of Panchram Rathiya, who is father of applicant No.1. Furthermore blood stains clothes and Axe have been seized from applicant No.1. Looking to the nature of offence and seizure of articles, applicants may not be released on bail. 4 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Considering facts of the case, nature of offence, submissions of counsel for the parties, the fact that dead body of deceased found in varenda (courtyard) of Panchram Rathiya, who is father of applicant No.1 and particularly the fact that blood stains clothes and Axe have been seized from applicant No.1, therefore, looking to the nature of offence and seizure of articles, I am not inclined to allow this second bail application of the applicants. 8. Accordingly, the instant second bail application for grant of bail is hereby rejected. CC as per rules. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) JUDGE J/-