2025:CGHC:39006 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 6199 of 2025 Ramesh Kumar Vishwakarma S/o Rajendra Prasad Aged About 35 Years Caste Lohar, R/o Village Orgai, Police Station And Tehsil Sonhat, District Koriya, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Police Sonhat, District Koriya, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent (Cause title is taken from the CIS) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Applicant : Shri Rahil Arun Kochar, Advocate For Respondent/State : Shri Suyash Dhar Badgayya, Dy GA ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 06.08.2025 1. Heard on the application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS, 2023). This is the 2nd bail application before this Court filed by the applicant for grant of regular bail. His 1st bail application has been dismissed as withdrawn after arguing for some time, on 15.04.2025 in MCRC-2771 of 2025 without any liberty to the applicant. 2. The applicant has been arrested on 14.11.2024 in connection with Crime No.185 of 2024, registered at PS- Sonhat District-Koriya, Chhattisgarh for the offence punishable under Section 103 of the BNSS Act. 3. Case of the prosecution in brief is that on 16.11.2024, there was scuffle took place between the applicant, and the deceased- Rajendra Prasad, who Digitally signed by V PADMAVATHI Date: 2025.08.07 10:44:54 +0530 Mcrc 6199 of 2025 2 was in drunken condition, and after the quarrel, applicant banged the head of the deceased to the wall, by which, he received injuries on his head. He was taken to the hospital, where he died. Deceased is father of the applicant. Just about after half an hour of the incident, mother came on the spot, to whom the applicant narrated the incident. Merg was intimated to the Police, and after investigation, applicant has been arrested on 14.11.2024, and charge-sheet has been filed. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that there is no eyewitness to the incident, no motive has been introduced by the prosecution to commit the offence. Applicant is falsely implicated in the offence, and no weapon has been seized from him. Alleged witnesses of extra judicial confession, namely, Shyambai, Shiv Prasad, and Pratimabai, PW-1, 2 and 3 respectively, have been examined by the prosecution but they have not supported the prosecution case. There are 20 witnesses cited by the prosecution, out of which, only few witnesses have been examined till date, and there is every possibility of conclusion of trial, and looking to the length of incarceration period of the applicant, he may be released on bail. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application, and would submit that the 1st bail application has been dismissed as withdrawn after arguing for sometime, and no liberty has been granted to the applicant. Merits of the case have already been argued during hearing of 1st bail application. Even otherwise, applicant is the son of the deceased and both of them were alone present in the house. After commission of offence, mother of the applicant came to the spot, before whom the applicant has made extra judicial confession about the offence. PW1, 2 and 3 are the witnesses to the Mcrc 6199 of 2025 3 extra judicial confession. Whether they have supported the prosecution case, or not, is the subject matter of the trial, and motive is also there with respect to applicant consuming liquor, and quarrel arose between the son and father. Examination of the witnesses is going on, and the trial is in advance stage, and 8 witnesses out of 20 have already been examined. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled for bail. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the bail application. 7. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, considering nature of allegation and the material collected by the prosecution during investigation, further, considering that the 1st bail application of the applicant has been dismissed as withdrawn after arguing for some time on merits, without giving any liberty to the applicant, evidence of the witnesses is to be appreciated by the learned trial Court, but at present, there is sufficient material to show the involvement of the applicant in commission of offence of murder of his own father, trial of the case has already commenced, and till now, 8 witnesses have been examined, I am not inclined to release the applicant on regular bail. 8. Accordingly, 2nd bail application of the applicant- Ramesh Kumar Vishwakarma is rejected. Certified copy as per rules. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) JUDGE padma