1 / 3 2025:CGHC:39135 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 6190 of 2025 Suresh Kathle S/o Dhaniram Kathle Aged About 39 Years R/o Pataidih, P.S. Pachpedi, Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, P.S. Pachpedi, Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Applicant : Mr. Kanhaiya Ram Yadav, Advocate For State : Mr. Satish Gupta, GA (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board 06/08/2025 1. Earlier bail application of the applicant was dismissed as withdrawn by the application on 17.01.2025. 2. This is the Second bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No.359/2024 registered at Police Station -Pachpedi, District Bilaspur (C.G.), for the offences punishable under Sections 103(1) and 3(5) of BNS, 2023. 2 / 3 3. The prosecution's story is that the applicant along with other co- acused persons have committed an offence punishable under Sections 103(1) and 3(5) of the Bharatitya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 by causing grievous injuries to the deceased (Babulal Jangde) by means of iron rod and Stick. Based upon report, FIR was registered and applicant has been arrested. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in this case, he has not committed any offence as alleged against him. FIR was registered against the accused/ Dhannu Kathle and Suresh Kathle, but subsequently the present applicant has been implicated in this case, though as per report and statements of the prosecution witnesses, present applicant has no role attributed in crime in question. One co-accused Urmila Kathle has been granted bail by this Court on 13.06.2025 in MCRC No.3937/2025. Applicant is in jail since 25.10.2024 and trial of the case is likely to take time for conclusion, hence, applicant may be released on bail. 5. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application of the present applicant and would submit that there is specific evidence/material available which shows that applicant has committed the aforesaid offence/crime. He further pointed out that in the FIR, name of the present applicant is also mentioned and last scene witness Raju Yadav is still examined before the trial Court. Hence, looking to the nature of offence, he is not entitled for grant of bail. 3 / 3 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Considering entire facts & circumstances of the case, nature of allegation, submissions of counsel for the parties, particularly the submission that name of the present applicant is mentioned in the FIR, last scene witness Raju Yadav is still not examined before the trial Court, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail at this stage. 8. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected. Sd/- Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE J.