1 2025:CGHC:28254 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 4571 of 2025 1 - Ramdev Salam S/o. Late Shri Sobhi Ram Salam Aged About 30 Years R/o. Village - Mohgaon, Bechpara, Thana - Bhanupratappur, Tahsil - Bhanupratappur, Distt. North Bastar Kanker (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station - Dugali Fohabara, Distt. Dhamtari (C.G.) ---Non-Applicant For Applicants : Mr. Shreyansh Pathak, Advocate For-Non-applicant : Mr. Statish Gupta, G.A. Hon’ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 26/06/2025 1. The applicant has preferred this Second Bail Application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. in connection with Crime No. 06/2024, registered at Police Station Dugali, Fohabara District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 120(B) of IPC. 2. Earlier bail application was rejected on merits on 05.02.2025 in MCRC No. 1012/2025. 3. The prosecution story in brief is that a merg report no. 02/2024 is 2 registered on the basis of the information given by mobile phone by Channu Lal Kanshi regarding death of unknown lady near the forest area of Dugali that the half burnt body of unknown lady lying down 20 m away from the road and the Panchnama is prepared merg statement is recorded therefore the offence under Section 302 of IPC is registered and applicant was arrested for the alleged commission of offence after completing the investigation chargesheet is filed. 4. It was argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant have falsely implicated in this case, he has not committed any offence as alleged against them. The main accused manrakhan netam both are resident of same village and on being resident of same village, they known each other, he has falsely been roped in this case in fact the present applicant neither have information of the incident nor he had any information of the alleged incident. He is in jail since 30.08.2024 and also the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion, hence he may be released on bail. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application and submits that there is ample evidence on record to connect the appellant with commission of the offence. For which, the applicants have not given any plausible explanation, therefore, their bail application is liable to be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary produced by the learned counsel for the State. 7. Considering the nature and gravity of the offence and further considering the fact that the present applicants assaulted the deceased by means of 3 jekroads and katari and thereafter committed murder and considering the fact that earlier bail application was rejected on merits, I do not find any change of circumstances to reconsider this repeat application for grant of bail and to release the applicant on bail, therefore, at this stage, the aforesaid bail application of applicant is rejected. 8. However, this Court hope and trust that the trial Court shall make an earnest endeavour to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible, if there is no legal impediment. 9. Office is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Jyoti