1 2025:CGHC:2698 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 436 of 2025 1 - Vijay Yadav S/o Shri Bhrigunath Yadav Aged About 45 Years Present Address- Near Railway Ticket Counter, Rented House Of Pandey, Village- Baikunth, Thana- Tilda-Newra, District- Raipur (C.G.), Permanent Address- Shivpur, Thana- Dubhar (Wrongly Mention As 'dubhad' In Impugned Order) District- Ballia (U.P.) ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House OfÏcer, Thana- Tilda Newra, District- Raipur (C.G.) Non-Applicant For Applicants : Mr. Mahesh Kumar Mishra, Advocate For-Non-applicant : Mr. Pragya Shrivastava, Dy. G.A. Hon’ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 16/01/2025 1. The applicant has preferred this Third Bail Application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. in connection with Crime No. 296/2022, registered at Police Station Tilda Newra, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh for the offences punishable under Section 302, 147, 148, 149, 294, 323, 506(B) of the IPC. 2 2. Earlier first bail application was withdrawn by the learned counsel for applicant on 10.04.2023. Second bail application was also dismissed on merits on 16.02.2024. 3. The prosecution story in brief, is that, on 11.09.2022, there was a quarrel with regard to the papers fallen on ground near welcome Dhaba between one accused Pankaj Yadav and Deceased Jitendra Yadav and his friend Dinesh Yadav and Vishal Singh. Pankaj Yadav called his family members on mobile and informed them about the incident and other five accused came and assaulted the deceased with the help of wood, sticks and pipes and injuries were caused to the deceased whereby Jitendra died. 4. It was argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that one co-accused namely Bhrigunath Yadav has already been granted bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Cr. 4532/2024 passed on 12.11.2024. Out of 32 witnesses, only 11 have been examined which includes the material witnesses and they are turned hostile, therefore the applicant may be released on bail 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application and submits that there is ample evidence on record to connect the appellants with commission of the offence. The present applicant and other persons assaulted the deceased with the help of wood sticks and pipes, due to which 3 the Jitendra died. For which, the applicant has not given any plausible explanation, therefore, his bail application is liable to be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary produced by the learned counsel for the State. 7. As regards the contention of the learned counsel for applicant with regard to co-accused Bhrigunath Yadav has already been granted bail only on the basis of he is around 65 years of age and has been behind bars for more than two years. In the present case, the age of the applicant is 45 years, therefore the applicant cannot claimed bail on the ground of parity. 8. Considering the nature and gravity of the offence and further considering the fact that the present applicant and other persons assaulted the deceased with the help of wood sticks and pipes, due to which the Jitendra died, therefore, at this stage, the aforesaid third bail application of applicant is rejected. 9. Office is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Jyoti