1 2025:CGHC:14594 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 2408 of 2025 Budhlal S/o Dongaru Baiga Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Nagadabara, Mathpur, Police Station Kukdur, District Kabirdham (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Kukdur, District Kabirdham (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Ajay Kumar Chandra, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 26.03.2025 1. This is the Second Bail Application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 21/2024, registered at Police Station : Kukdur, District Kabirdham (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 201, 120(B), 147, 148, 149 & 436 of the IPC. 2. The earlier bail application of the applicant has been rejected by this KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 Court in MCRC No. 396/2025 vide order dated 15.01.2025 on technical grounds with liberty to file afresh after proper correction of the offences. 3. Case of the prosecution, in brief is that, the present applicant along with other co-accused persons have murdered Budhram Baiga, Hirmati Bai and Jonhu Ram and put their dead body on fire to conceal the evidence, therefore, the Police has registered the offence as mentioned above and filed the charge-sheet before the concerned Court. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that the applicant has only been arrested on the basis of memorandum statement of the co-accused persons and there is no any material against the present applicant in FIR nor in the charge-sheet. Further, co-accused persons, namely, Akkal Baiga and Budhvarin Bai Baiga have already been granted bail by this Court in MCRC No. 8843 of 2024 vide order dated 06.01.2025 and the case of the present applicant is similar to that of the co- accused persons. Lastly, applicant is languishing in jail since 22.02.2024 and though the charge-sheet has been filed, the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, hence he prays for grant of bail to the applicant. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel, opposes the bail application and submits that there are three persons have been done to death and the name of the applicants finds place in the FIR as well as charge-sheet and further, eye-witnesses have deposed in 3 their deposition that the applicant along with co-accused persons have assaulted the deceased persons and thereafter, set their house on fire in order to conceal the evidence. So far as co-accused persons who have been granted bail are concerned, they were neither named in the FIR nor had any active role in the crime in question. Lastly, looking to the gravity of offence and seriousness of crime, the bail application of the applicant is liable to be rejected. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that there are three persons have been done to death and the name of the applicant finds place in the FIR as well as charge-sheet and further, eye-witnesses have deposed in their deposition that the applicant along with co-accused persons have assaulted the deceased persons and thereafter, set their house on fire in order to conceal the evidence also, so far as co-accused persons released on bail are concerned, they were neither named in the FIR nor had any active role in the crime in question, thus, looking to the gravity of offence and seriousness of crime, this Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant on regular bail. 8. Accordingly, this second bail application of applicant – Budhlal, involved in Crime No. 21/2024, registered at Police Station : Kukdur, District Kabirdham (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 201, 120(B), 147, 148, 149 & 436 of the IPC, is 4 rejected. 9. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 10. OfÏce is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal