1 2025:CGHC:21452 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 3623 of 2025 1. Sonu @ Somu @ Liladhar Yadav S/o Premlal Yadav Aged About 25 Years R/o Krishna Nagar Daganiya District - Raipur Chhattisgarh 2. Raja @ Pritam Yadav S/o Premlal Yadav Aged About 22 Years R/o Krishna Nagar Daganiya District - Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Applicants versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Dindayal Upadhyay Nagar District - Raipur (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant For Applicants : Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Sakib Ahmed, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 08.05.2025 1. This is the Second bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant arrested in connection with Crime No. 206/2024 registered at Police Station – Dindayal Upadhyay Nagar, District - Raipur for the offence punishable under Sections 294, 506, 323, 307, 34 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 25 and 27 of Arms Act. PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.05.09 19:26:03 +0530 2 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant has made complaint to the concerned police Station alleging that on incident date i.e. 05.05.2024 at about 7.30 PM there was some simple dispute in between the applicants and injured person with regard to previous enmity and thereafter, the applicants used filthy language and assaulted upon injured persons by weapon, by causing injury has found over hand, stomach and backside of the injured person. Based upon the such complaint, Police has registered the crime against the applicants. 3. First bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 15.10.2024 passed in MCRC No. 7076/2024. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that statement of 04 witnesses have been examined and victim has also been examined in the present case. It is submitted that there is no eye witness in this case and only on the basis of merely suspicious, the applicants have been falsely been implicated in this crime, the applicant is in jail since 12.06.2024, and the conclusion of the trial shall take quite long time. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel, opposes the bail application and submits that the applicants are said to have assaulted the injured/complainant with knife and injured has received several injuries, further the statement of injured would show that the applicants are involved in the crime in question, on 3 which basis the first bail application of the applicants was rejected by this Court. Thus, the bail application deserves to be rejected. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Considering the above submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, as the statement of 04 witnesses have been examined, and statement of victim has also been examined, the same cannot be a ground for releasing the applicant on bail as the same amounts to only tampering with the evidence. 8. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that the applicants have assaulted the injured/complainant with knife and the complainant has received several injuries over his body, on which basis the first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court, therefore, this Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant on regular bail. 9. Accordingly, this second bail application of applicant – Sonu @ Somu @ Liladhar Yadav and Raja @ Pritam Yadav involved in Crime No. 206/2024 registered at Police Station – Dindayal Upadhyay Nagar, District - Raipur for the offence punishable under Sections 294, 506, 323, 307, 34 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 25 and 27 of Arms Act, is rejected at this stage. 10. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 4 11. Office 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 Preeti