1 2025:CGHC:30809 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 4813 of 2025 1 - Nijamuddin Khan S/o Karamuddin Khan Aged About 59 Years R/o Village Shaktighat Biranpur, Police Station Saja, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. --- Applicant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Saja, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Central Bureau Of Investigation Through Its Superintendent Of Police Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Veer Verma, Advocate For Non-applicant No.1 : Mr. UKS Chandel, Dy. Advocate General For Non-applicant No.2 : Mr. B. Gopa Kumar, Advocate appeared through V.C. along with Mr. Himanshu Pandey, Advocate SB: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order on Board 07.07.2025 1. This is second bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (henceforth ‘the BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to applicant, who is in custody in connection with Crime No.87/2023 registered at Police Station Saja, District Bemetara (CG) for the offence punishable under Sections 120-B, 147, 148, 149, 307/149, 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code. 2 2. First bail application bearing M.Cr.C. No.1096/2024 was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 26.2.2024. 3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 8.4.2023, four school going boys of Sahu community were intercepted and assaulted by the boys of other community. A meeting was organized to intervene and for that purpose the boys of other community residing in the village were also called but they did not turn up in the meeting. When Bhuneshwar Sahu along with his friends Bhagirathi Sahu and Rajaram Sahu were going to other vicinity of the village to call members of other community, the stones were pelted at them from the houses as a result Bhuneshwar Sahu sustained injuries, fell down and thereafter accused persons including present applicant dragged Bhuneshwar Sahu and assaulted him by means of sharp edged weapon also, as a result he died. Incident was reported in concerned police station based upon which instant crime was registered and during course of investigation, applicant was arrested. 4. Learned counsel for applicant would submit that applicant was arrested on 9.4.2023 and since then he is in jail i.e. for last more than two years. Trial till date has not commenced and conclusion of trial may take some time. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 opposing the bail application, would submit that nature of offence committed by applicant is serious one. In the statement of witnesses namely Bhekhlal Thakur, Premlal Sahu, Rajaram Sahu, Bhagirathi Sahu, Gocharan Sahu recorded during course of investigation, there is direct allegation against applicant regarding his involvement in commission of crime in question along with others. Delay in start of 3 trial is on the ground that after handing over of investigation to the CBI, supplementary charge sheet was filed and now the case has been transferred to the CBI Court vide order of this Court dated 12.3.2025 and is fixed on 20.6.2025. He also contended that merely period of detention will not be sufficient ground to grant bail in such a serious nature of offence of assaulting and committing murder of one and injuries to others. In support of his contention, he placed reliance upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav vs CBI, reported in 2007 AIR SCR 753. He further submits that the bail application of co-accused Jalil Khan, based on similar allegations, has already been rejected by this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 17.06.2025 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 2654 of 2025. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. This is an application seeking bail by the applicant under the provision of Section 483 of the BNSS, therefore, this Court is confined only to consider whether applicant is entitled for bail or not. 8. On due consideration of the submission of the learned counsel for the parties, the fact that application of similarly placed co-accused was rejected, I do not find present to be a fit case to allow this application and enlarge the applicant on bail. 9. Accordingly, this second bail application is rejected. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Balram