1 2025:CGHC:22767 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 3227 of 2025 1 - Mo. Jisan Khan S/o Mo. Ibrahim Khan Aged About 30 Years R/o Ward No.-04, Mahamaya Ward, P.S. - Mungeli, District - Mungeli (C.G.) 2 - Saddam Khan S/o Late Tafril Ahamad Aged About 32 Years R/o Ward No.- 04, Mahamaya Ward, P.S. - Mungeli, District - Mungeli (C.G.) ... Applicants versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - The Police Station - Simga, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Respondent (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Applicant : Mr. Raza Ali, Advocate along with Mr. Ankur Agrawal, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Ajit Singh, Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 09/06/2025 1. This is the second bail application of the applicants. The first bail application of the applicants has been dismissed as withdrawn after arguing for some time vide order dated 03-12-2024, passed in MCRC VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2025.06.10 17:38:34 +0530 2 No. 8066 of 2024. While withdrawing the first bail application, the liberty was granted to the applicants to repeat their prayer for bail after examination of the injured witnesses, Anita and Goverdhan. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants would submit that both these injured witnesses have been examined on 25-02-2025 and 28- 03-2025 respectively. The applicants have not been named either in the FIR or in the 161 CRPC statement. The injured witnesses have made exaggerated evidence before the learned trial Court and at the most the offence under Section 294 of IPC only is made out against the applicants. They are in jail since 06-06-2024, final adjudication of the case will take its own time. Therefore, they may be enlarged on bail. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes and has submitted that the first bail application of the applicants has been dismissed as withdrawn. The injured witnesses have duly supported the prosecution's case and involvement of the applicants are there. Whether or not they have participated in the alleged offence of murder of the deceased Nand Kumar. The evidence requires appreciation, as the injured eyewitnesses have supported the prosecution's case. After dismissal of first bail application of the applicants, there is no change in circumstances and the trial of the case is in progress. Therefore, the second bail application of the applicants is liable to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the bail application as well as case diary. 5. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, considering that the first bail application of the applicants has been 3 dismissed and further that the injured witnesses (PW-1 and PW-2) have supported the prosecution's case and the involvement of the applicants in the offence in question requires appreciation by the learned trial Court, I am not inclined to release the applicants on bail. Their second bail application is therefore dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge ved