Chattisgarh High Court
Oman Maris Peter vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 9 June, 2025
1
Digitally
A signed by
ANNAJEE A
RAO ANNAJEE
RAO
2025:CGHC:22743
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No. 3025 of 2025
1 - Oman Maris Peter S/o Shri Dan Masih Peter Aged About 25 Years
(Wrongly Mentioned Amon in the Order), R/o Ward No.- 13,
Parsabhader, P/s - City Kotwali, Balodabazar, Distt. Balodabazar-
Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Applicant
versus
1 - State of Chhattisgarh through - Police Station - City Kotwali, Distt.
Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Respondent
For the applicant : Mr. Ajay Kumar Mishra, Advocate.
For the State : Mr. Prabha Sharma, Panel Lawyer.
For the objector : Mr. Vivek Singhal, Advocate
(Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal)
Order Sheet
09/06/2025
1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the
2
Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the
applicant in connection with Crime No. 210 of 2025 registered at Police
Station City Kotwali, District Baloda Bazar, Bhatapara (C.G) for the
offence punishable under Sections 103, 3(5) of BNS Code and sections
2. As per the prosecution story, on 04.03.2025 a report was lodged
by Harshit Mishra, brother of deceased, to the effect that his brother
Gyanendra Mishra (deceased) had gone outside on his scooter at about
9.30 p.m., and when he did not come till late night at 1 p.m. the
complainant made a phone call to him about his return on which
Gyanendra responded to return home and disconnected the phone.
Again when the complainant made a phone call, at 2.05 a.m., someone
-else had informed him on Gyanendra’s mobile that Gyanendra had met
with an accident. On that information, the complainant rushed to the
place where Gyandendra was lying bleeding on the road and three
people were also there including the present applicant and they
informed about Gyanendra’s argument with someone else. When the
complainant asked Gyanendra, he told that some one had hit him with
sharp edged object and the injuries were caused on the thigh of the
right leg. The deceased became unconscious and was brought to a
private hospital where he died after medical examination.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that except a mobile
phone, no seizure was made from the applicant. He further submits
that there is no direct evidence against the present applicant to connect
him with the crime in question and the knife was seized from co-
3
accused Sahil and as per the postmortem report 3 stab injuries were
found on the thigh of right leg and the cause of death was the result of
knife blows. He further submits that it is clear from the memorandum
statement of accused that the present applicant having seen the
deceased lying on the road in the late night had gone there only to
rescue the deceased and even he received the phone call of
complainant over the mobile of deceased and informed him about the
place of incident and on such information, the complainant (brother of
deceased) could reach the place of incident and talked to the deceased.
He would also submit that even the name of applicant was not
mentioned as assailant in the statement recorded under Section 161 of
CrPC. He submits that the applicant is in jail since 05.03.2025 and the
charge sheet has been filed, therefore, he may be enlarged on bail
under section 483 of BNSS.
4. Per contra, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application.
5. I have heard the leaned counsel for the parties and have also
gone through the case diary.
6. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the
parties and facts and circumstances of the case as also the fact that no
criminal antecedents are reported against him and further considering
the fact that the postmortem report shows that the knife injuries were
caused to the deceased whereas the knife was not seized from the
applicant and there is no direct evidence against the applicant and also
considering the fact that the name of applicant was not mentioned as
assailant in the written report, FIR or in the statement recorded under
4
Section 161 of CrPC, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case to release
the applicant on regular bail.
7. Accordingly, the application filed u/s 483 BNSS is allowed and the
applicant is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing a personal
bond in sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the
sanctification of the trial Court for his appearance before the said Court
as and when directed.
CC as per rules.
Sd/-
(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal)
Judge
Rao