Devnandan Rathiya Vs State of Chhattisgarh

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 StationGharghoda District- Raigarh (C.G.), for the offence under

2

Sections 103(1), 61(2), 49, 238, 3(5) of the BNS.

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.

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.

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

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.