1 2025:CGHC:45509 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 7117 of 2025 1 - Tushar Sahu S/o Yashwant Sahu Aged About 24 Years R/o Sanjay Nagar Police Station - Tikrapara District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station - Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shubham Tripathi, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Arvind Dubey, Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. Order on Board 08/09/2025 1. This is the third bail application of the applicant. The applicant has been arrested on 05.06.2024 in Crime No. 444/2024 registered at Police Station Tikrapara, District Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. 2. The first bail application of the applicant has been dismissed on merits vide order dated 14.11.2024 passed in MCRC No. 6718/2024. The second bail application of the applicant has also been dismissed on 25.03.2025 passed in MCRC No. 2324/2024. While deciding the second bail application this Court has observed that the trial Court is making all his endeavour to serve the summons to the witnesses for recording their evidence. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that out of total 21 cited ALOK SHARMA Digitally signed by ALOK SHARMA Date: 2025.09.10 12:39:53 +0530 2 witnesses, 9 witnesses have been examined by the prosecution till date. The memorandum and seizure witnesses have been examined and they have turned hostile and not supported the prosecution case. The other witnesses are relative of the deceased party and they have also not been supported the prosecution. The applicant is in jail since 05.06.2024, and the final adjudication of the case will take its own time, therefore, he has filed this third bail application. 4. On the other hand, leaned counsel appearing for the State opposes and submits that total 9 witnesses have been examined till date and the case is at advance stage of trial. The bail application of the applicant has already been dismissed on merits vide order dated 14.11.2024, therefore, the applicant is not entitled for bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the petition. 6. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, considering the fact that the first bail application of the applicant has been dismissed on merits vide order dated 14.11.2024, thereafter, 09 witnesses have been examined and the trial is at advance stage further the appreciation of the evidence of examined witnesses are to be considered by the trial Court and not by this Court while deciding the bail application of the applicant, I do not find any change in circumstances to admit this third bail application. 7. Accordingly, the third bail application of the applicant is rejected. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Alok