1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 2161 of 2026 Basuram Bhagat S/o Jaldhar, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Sonpur Sukbasupara, P.S. Kapu, District Raigarh C.G. ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer (S.H.O.) P.S. Kapu, Dist. Raigarh C.G. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mohammad Sohail Khan, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, Dy.A.G. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order On Board 15/04/2026 1. The applicant has preferred this 1st bail application under Section 483 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita Act 2023 for grant of regular bail as he is arrested in connection with crime No. 97/2024, registered at Police Station – Kapu, District- Raigarh (C.G.) for offence punishable under Sections 103(1) of BNS. 2. The prosecution case, in short, is that on 11.08.2024, at village Sonpur, Sukbasupara under the jurisdiction of P.S. Kapu, Raigarh, the applicant assaulted Jugru Ram with his hands, fists, and the wood of a hitching post due to which he sustained grievous injuries and died on 13.08.2024. Based on above, offence has been registered against the applicant and he was arrested on 16.08.2024. SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Digitally signed by SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Date: 2026.04.15 17:44:30 +0530 2 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the crime in question. He further submits that at the time of incident, the deceased was intoxicated. The only allegation against the applicant is that he assaulted the deceased with his hands and fists. Further, the applicant is in jail since 16.08.2024 and served about 1 year and 8 months of jail sentence, out of 18 prosecution witnesses, none examined till date and the trial is likely to take more time to be finalized, therefore, it is prayed that the applicant may be enlarged on bail. 4. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the bail application and submits that this is the matter of eye-witness and there is named FIR against the applicant, therefore, looking to the nature of offence, the applicant may not be released on bail. 5. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, evidence collected by the prosecution, detention period of the applicant and the fact that out of 18 prosecution witnesses, none examined till date and the trial is likely to take some time to be finalized, without commenting on merits of the case, I am inclined to release the applicant on bail. 7. Accordingly, the bail application is Allowed. 8. It is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail on executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 20,000/- with one solvent surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for his appearance before the said Court as and when directed. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Shubham