Chattisgarh High Court
Kapil Kumar Gendle vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 25 June, 2025
Author: Parth Prateem Sahu
Bench: Parth Prateem Sahu
1/4
2025:CGHC:27649
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No. 4890 of 2025
• Kapil Kumar Gendle S/o Pyare Gendle Aged About 27 Years (As Per
Challan), R/o Village Semariya, Police Station Bhatapara Gramin District
Balodabazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh Present R/o Ward No. 6, Bhursuda,
Police Station Tilda Neora District Raipur Chhattisgarh
... Applicant
versus
• State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Tilda Neora, District Raipur
Chhattisgarh
... Respondent
For Applicant : Mr. Ghanshyam Kashyap, Advocate
For Respondent-State : Mr. K.P. Gupta, Govt. Advocate along with Mr.
T.S. Sahu, Panel Lawyer
Hon’ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge PAWAN
ORDER ON BOARD KUMAR
JHA
25/06/2025 Digitally
signed by
PAWAN
KUMAR JHA
1. Applicant has filed this fifth bail application under Section 483 of Bhartiya
Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail as he has been
arrested in connection with Crime No. 268/2023 registered at Police Station –
Tilda Neora, District Raipur (C.G.) for offence punishable under Sections 302,
2. Case of prosecution in brief is that on 09.07.2023 a dead body was found in
Pandari pond of village Bhursuda. This came to knowledge of villagers and
also to wife of deceased Ramavatar, upon which, she went to the pond and
found that dead body was of her husband. Morgue was reported to the
concerned police station, based upon which, crime was registered. During
2/4
investigation based on the statement of wife of deceased namely Dukalhin
and one Sagar Ratre, applicant was arrested.
3. Learned counsel for applicant submits that earlier the bail application of
applicant was dismissed on merit vide order dated 06.05.2024. Thereafter the
material witnesses have been examined namely Sagar Ratre, Rajkumar
Ratre, Dheeraji Ratre and Amarnath Ratre, who are close relatives of the
deceased Ramavatar Ratre but they have not supported the case of
prosecution. He also contended that the seizure and memorandum witnesses
have also been examined and they have also not supported case of
prosecution. One of the witnesses, Dukahlin Bai widow of deceased, in her
statement has stated that prior to finding of body of deceased there was
quarrel between the accused person with the deceased in the night. However,
she is not turning upon for recording her evidence. As per the ordersheet
which is enclosed along with bail application at page no. 114 & 116 it is
appearing that she thereafter is suffering from mental ailment and not in a
position to give evidence before the Court. The person who went to the
address for serving arrest warrant has mentioned this fact, which is recorded
in the ordersheet of the trial court dated 18.02.2025 and thereafter the trial
court in its ordersheet dated 28.04.2025 has also directed to produce medical
certificate or relevant documents in this regard. As except Dukalhin Bai who
could not be examined due to her suffering from mental ailment, all other
witnesses have not supported case of prosecution. Applicant be enlarged on
bail, he is in jail since 10.07.2023.
4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the submission made by
learned counsel for the applicant and further submits that in the charge-sheet
there is specific material against applicant connecting him in the
aforementioned crime as just few hours before finding of body applicant
quarreled with deceased Ramavatar in the night and in the morning the dead
body was found floating in the pond. He submits that the copy of deposition as
3/4
referred by the counsel for appellant is subject matter of appreciation by the
trial court.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents
placed on record.
6. Taking into consideration facts and circumstances of the case, nature of
allegation, submission made by learned counsel for the respective parties,
period of pre-trial detention of applicant since 10.07.2023, without
commenting anything on merits of the case, I am inclined to allow this
application.
7. Accordingly, bail application is allowed. It is directed that the applicant shall
be released on regular bail, upon furnishing a bail bond in the sum of
₹ 25,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court on
the conditions that-
(a) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he
shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence
when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this
condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of
liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.
(b) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on
each date fixed, either personally or through him counsel. In case
of him absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may
proceed against him under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita.
(c) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial
and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section
84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the
court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court
shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law,
under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
(d) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial
court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of
charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 351 of
BNSS. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant
4/4
is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for
the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and
proceed against him in accordance with law.
8. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court
concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith.
Sd/-
(Parth Prateem Sahu)
pwn JUDGE