1 2025:CGHC:33579 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRC No. 5588 of 2025 1 - Smt. Chitrekha W/o Shri Kejuram Patle Aged About 35 Years Village Budhwara, P.S. Fasterpur, District Mungeli (C.G.) 2 - Smt. Rajani Patle W/o Shri Rambali Patle Aged About 30 Years Village Budhwara, P.S. Fasterpur, District Mungeli (C.G.) 3 - Smt. Meenaksi Patle W/o Makhan Patle Aged About 30 Years Village Budhwara, P.S. Fasterpur, District Mungeli (C.G.) ... Applicants versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Fasterpur, District Mungeli (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicants : Mr. Ashish Tiwari, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Satish Gupta, Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 17.07.2025 1. The applicants have preferred this Third Bail Application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 for grant of regular bail as they have been arrested in connection with Crime No.72/2024, registered at Police Station- Fasterpur, District-Mungeli, Chhattisgarh, for the offence punishable under Section 103(1), 109(2), 191(2), 191(3), 190, 61(2)(a) of the BNS, 2023. First bail ALFIZA BAIG Digitally signed by ALFIZA BAIG Date: 2025.07.17 14:59:05 +0530 2 application was dismissed by this for want of prosecution by this Court vide order dated 17.01.2025 and thereafter the second bail application was rejected by this Court vide order dated 03.04.2025 on merits. 2. Brief facts of this case as per the prosecution story are that, a report was lodged by one Narendra Patle stating that on 25.08.2024 his elder brother Bhagbali Patle, Vakil Patle, Kaushal Patle, and sister-in-law Santoshi were standing in front of the house of his brother Makhan Patle in Gram-Gigtara. At the same time a scuffle broke out in his house and after hearing the noise of the same the complainant went there and saw that the accused persons namely Kejuram Patle, Toran Patle, Makhan, Rambali, Chitrekha, Rajini, Minakshi, Bhagbali Patle, Vakil Patle, Kaushal Patle, and Santoshi with club caused injury to them due to which they received severe injuries. 3. Further allegation of the prosecution is that thereafter accused Kejuram Patle drove his E-Series Tractor and crushed Bhagbali Patle, due to which he died on the spot. Vakil Patle, Kaushal Patle, and Santoshi were taken to the District Hospital-Mungeli where Doctors declared Vakil Patle dead. Based on the report given by the complainant police registered the case against the accused persons. 3 4. Learned counsel for the applicants contended that, the applicants are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in the alleged crime, they have not committed any offence as alleged against them. He further contended there are in total 32 witnesses out of which 12 witnesses have been examined by the trial Court and out of those 12 witnesses the complainant who lodged the complaint has turned hostile. The main witness of the case has not taken the name of the accused applicants anywhere in their examination. He contended that material witnesses have not deposed anything against the accused applicants and there pertains no incriminating evidences which could actually reveal that the present applicant are involved in the crime in question and thereby connect them in the alleged offence. Even no seizure has been made from the applicants. 5. He further contended that even the wife of the deceased Santoshi (PW-08) and wife of Vakil Patle, Sarita (PW-04) has not supported the anything against the present applicants. The main witnesses of the incident have totally turned hostile. Hence there is are some substantial changes in the circumstances of the case. Moreover, the present applicants are ladies and are languishing in the jail since from a year. Hence he prays for enlarging the present applicants on the basis that only 12 witnesses have been examined by the trial Court till date out of 4 the 32 witnesses due to which the trial will take considerable time to conclude. The applicant are ready to furnish adequate surety and shall abide all the directions and conditions which may be imposed by this Court while granting bail. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application submitted by the applicants stating that there are material evidences which connect the present applicants with the crime in question and in pursuance of the common intention, assaulted the deceased persons. Hence enlarging the present applicants on bail would amount to injustice on the part of the deceased as well as the injured persons. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length, perused the case and other materials available on record with rapt attention. 8. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and further considering the nature of offence, particularly to the fact that it is a double murder case which took place in the broad day light. Also PW-03 /Santoshi Patle statement before the concerned trial Court it appears that there is no substantial changes in the circumstances of the case. Moreover, only 12 witnesses have been examined by the concerned trial Court out of the 32 witnesses, therefore, at this juncture this Court 5 could not appreciate the evidences led by the witnesses before concerned trial Court. 9. Hence, this Court is not inclined to allow the bail application of the present applicants. 10. Accordingly, the present MCRC stands rejected. 11. However, this Court hopes and trust that the concerned trial Court shall make all endeavors to conclude the trial of the case expeditiously and as soon as possible in its own merits. Certified copies as per rules. sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge alfiza