1 / 2 2025:CGHC:18753 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 3201 of 2025 • Ankit Dhuri S/o Late Satish Dhuri Aged About 24 Years R/o Village- Chulghat Road, Takhatpur, Police Station- Takhatpur, District- Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) ... Applicant versus • State of Chhattisgarh through the Officer- In-Charge Of Police Station- Takhatpur, District- Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Palash Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent-State : Mr. Rajeev Bharat, Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge ORDER ON BOARD 25/04/2025 1. Applicant has filed this second bail application under Section 483 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 129/2023 registered at Police Station – Takhatpur District Bilaspur (C.G.) for offence punishable under Sections 302/34 of IPC and Section 25, 27 of the Arms Act, 1959. 2. Case of prosecution in brief is that on 07.03.2023 at about 11:00 pm, complainant Raja Dhuri along with his friend Hariom Nirmalkar came to the house of deceased Ashish Dhuri and informed his father that applicant along with other co-accused persons have assaulted his son by means of knife near Durga Temple and he is lying there. Father of Ashish Dhuri along with others came to the spot of incident. Injured was taken to Community Health Centre, Takhatpur from where he was referred to Apollo Hospital, Bilaspur. During SHUBHAM DEY Digitally signed by SHUBHAM DEY 2 / 2 course of treatment, Ashish Dhuri died. Incident was reported to the concerned police station, based upon which crime was registered and during course of investigation, applicant was arrested on 08.03.2023. 3. Learned counsel for applicant submits that this second bail application is filed on the ground of delay in trial. He submits that out of 24 enlisted witnesses till 19.03.2025 only 14 witnesses have been examined. Trial is likely to take some time, hence, applicant may be released on bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the submission made by learned counsel for the applicant and further submits that two eye witnesses have supported the case of prosecution and there is one another criminal antecedent against the applicant. He also submits that applicant is main accused and instrumental to incident that there was property dispute between applicant and the deceased. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 6. Taking into consideration facts and circumstances of the case, nature of allegation, role of applicant in commission of crime, I do not find present to be a fit case to allow this application. Accordingly it is dismissed. However, taking note of the period of detention, learned Trial court is directed to expedite the trial and to take all necessary measures and steps for causing presence of of prosecution witnesses. Sd/-d/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) pwn JUDGE