2025:CGHC:56990 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 9044 of 2025

1 - Ramdev Rajwadey S/o Late Shivnandan Rajwadey Aged About 39 Years R/o Vill. Naugai P.S. Sonhat Tahsil Sonhat Distt. Korea (C.G.)

... Applicant(s)

versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer Police Station Churcha Distt. Korea (C.G.)

... Respondent(s)

For Petitioner(s) : Shri Mahendra K. Sahu, Advocate For Respondent/State : Shri Ajit Singh, GA (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma)

Order on Board

24/11/2025 The applicant has filed this bail application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrrik Suraksha Sanhita for grant of regular bail as he is in custody in connection with Crime No. 132/2025 registered at police station Churcha, District Koriya (CG) for the offence punishable under Sections 103(1). 238 (A) and 3(5) of BNSS 2023.

Brief facts of the case are that the informant Moti Ram lodged information before the polices station Churcha that an unknown dead body was lying at Patewa Ghat, Tikhur Nala Tarra. Based on this, Dehati Merg Intimation and Dehati Nalishi were registered. During panchnama, deceased was identified as Jaiprakash Toppo.

It is alleged that the deceased was last seen with the present applicant and co-accused Laxman Rajwade. According the statement of Kaushalya, the deceased, applicant and co-accused were present at her house on 08.07.2025 at about 3.00 pm, consumed liquor and thereafter left together stating that they were going home. However, deceased was found dead.

Contention of the counsel for the applicant is that the applicant has been falsely implicated and the entire case is based on circumstantial evidence and no direct material connects the applicant with the alleged offence. As per the postmortem report, dated 12.07.2025, deceased died 6 days prior to the examination ie. the death occurred around 05.07.2025 or 06.07.2025. He further submits that the prosecution relied on the “last seen theory” alleging that the deceased was last seen with the applicant on 08.07.2025 which is after the probable date of death, clearly falsifying the prosecution version and indicating concoction and exaggeration. Lastly, it is submitted that the applicant is in jail since 14.07.2025 the charge sheet has been filed and the trial is likely to take some time, he is ready and willing to comply with any of the conditions which may be imposed upon him and thus, it is submitted that the application be allowed and the applicant be released on bail.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent/State, on the other hand, has opposed the bail application and submits that the deceased was last seen in the company of the applicant and co-accused.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.

6. The prosecution case rests solely on the circumstantial evidence. The postmortem report indicates that the deceased died 6-7 days prior to 12.07.2025 thereby suggesting the probable date of death to be 05.07.2025 or 06.07.2025. However, the “last seen” version of the witness Kaushalya is dated 08.07.2025 subsequent to the probable date of death substantially weakening the prosecution’s last seen theory. There is no recovery, no direct evidence and no motive attributed specifically to the applicant. In view of the above circumstances, particularly the inconsistency between the medical evidence and the last seen theory and considering that the applicant is in jail since 14.07.2025, the charge sheet has been filed and looking to the fact that the final disposal of the trial is likely to take sufficiently long time, the present application deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, his bail application is allowed.

8. It is directed that in the event of applicant executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety to the satisfaction of the concerned trial court, he shall be released on bail on the following conditions:

(i) he shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement,threat or promise to any person acquaint