1 2025:CGHC:46276 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 7228 of 2025 Lokeshwar Tarak @ Jugru Tarak S/o Santosh Tarak Aged About 24 Years R/o Village- Beltukri, Police Station - Rajim, District- Gariyaband (C.G.) Present Address- Gali No. 01, House Of Manharan Sahu, Telibandha, District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus State of Chhattisgarh through the Station House Officer, Police Station Telibandha, District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent For the petitioner : Ms. Divya Sahu, Advocate For the respondent : Ms. Pragya Pandey, Dy. Govt. Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Order on Board 10.09.2025 1. This is second bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant in Crime No.596 of 2024 registered at Police Station Telibandha, Raipur (CG) for the offences under Sections 109, 103 of BNS 2023 and sections 25 & 27 of Arms Act. 2. The first bail application was dismissed on 23.06.2025 on merits. 2 3. The prosecution story in brief is that the complainant Dhaneshwari Yadav lodged a report stating that on 16.09.2024 at about 4.00 p.m., at the basement of Momo Magic Cafe, in front of Marine Drive, Raipur, the present applicant Jugru Tarak attacked the victim Yogita Sahu with a sharp edged weapon on her neck and caused fatal injury with the intention of killing her. When the complainant came to the rescue of victim, the present applicant also grabbed her neck and pushed her and then he fled from the scene. Thereafter, the victim was admitted in the hospital where she died during treatment. Based upon such report and memorandum statement, offence has been registered and the applicant has been arrested. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that at the time when the first bail application was dismissed, out of 24 witnesses, only 3 witnesses have been examined and now even till date total 5 witnesses have been examined and they have turned hostile to the persecution case. She next submits that there is no direct evidence available in this case to connect the applicant with the crime in question and only on the basis of memorandum statement, the applicant has been inculpated. She submits that the applicant is in jail since 18.09.2024 and there is no immediate possibility of disposal of case, therefore, the applicant may be enlarged on bail. 5. Per contra, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the trial is in progress. She further submits that witness Kishan whose evidence is crucial to the prosecution case has not yet been examined in this case as Kishan was also working at 3 Momo Magic Cafe along-with complainant and deceased Yogita Sahu and at the time of incident on hearing noise from down floor, Kishan rushed down to the floor where the incident took place. 6. Having considered the gravity of offence and the fact that at the time of dismissal of first bail application, 3 witnesses have been examined and even till now only 5 witnesses have been examined and further considering the fact that one crucial witness Kishan who was working in the same hotel at the time of incident, is yet be examined, I am not inclined to release the applicant on regular bail at this stage. Accordingly, this second bail application is rejected. 7. However, looking to the custody period of the applicant, the trial Court is directed to conclude the trial within a period of 5 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 8. Copy of this order be sent to the trial Court for information. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Rao