1 2025:CGHC:22768 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 3284 of 2025 1 - Nakul Chandravanshi S/o Thanwar (Wrongly Mentioned As Dhanwar In The Order) Aged About 51 Years R/o Village- Kesli, Out Post- Dashrangpur (Wrongly Mentioned As Dushrangpur In The Order), Police Station- Pipariya, District- Kabirdham (C.G.) 2 - Hemu Chandravanshi S/o Nakul Chandravanshi Aged About 25 Years R/o Village- Kesli, Out Post- Dashrangpur (Wrongly Mentioned As Dushrangpur In The Order), Police Station- Pipariya, District- Kabirdham (C.G.) ... Applicants versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Out Post- Dashranpur, Police Station- Pipariya, District- Kabirdham (C.G.) ... Respondent (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Applicant : Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Ajit Singh, Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2025.06.10 17:35:39 +0530 2 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 The first bail application of the applicants has been dismissed as withdrawn after arguing for some time vide order dated 20-12-2024, passed in MCRC No. 8640 of 2024. While dismissing the first bail application, the liberty was granted to the applicants to repeat their prayer for bail after examination of the material witnesses. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants would submit that the applicants are in jail since 04-09-2024. 07 witnesses have been examined till date and none of the witnesses have supported the prosecution's case. Final adjudication of the case will take its own time; therefore, he has filed the second bail application. He would also submit that the physical condition of the applicant No. 1 is not good in the jail, as he is blind and facing hardship in the jail premises. Therefore, they may be enlarged on bail. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes and has submitted that from the statements of Sampat and Lekhram, who are the witnesses of conspiracy and memorandum of the weapon of offence from the applicants and they are yet to be examined. Therefore, all the material witnesses have not been examined and there is no change in circumstances. He would further submit that there is no document produced by the applicants in support of their ailment. Therefore, the second bail application of the applicants is not bona fide and the same is liable to be dismissed. 3 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the application. 5. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, considering the nature of allegations and gravity of the offence, further considering that the other material witnesses Sampat and Lekhram, who are the witnesses of conspiracy and memorandum of the weapon of offence from the applicants and further considering that there is no document with respect to the ailment of the applicants, I am not inclined to release the applicants on bail. Therefore, their second bail application is dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge ved