1 2025:CGHC:47395 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 7458 of 2025 1 - Daman Singh Uikey S/o Lakhan Singh Uikey Aged About 24 Years R/o Pendridih Larkeni P.S.- Marwahi, District- Gourela -Pendra- Marwahi Present Address Ling Road, Agrasen Chowk, P.S. Tarbahar, Distt- Bilaspur ( C.G. ). ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Police Station House Tarbahar, District- Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ---Non-applicants For applicants : Mr. Sunil Otwani, Sr. Advocate along with Mr. Vinod Kumar Pandey, Advocate For-Non-applicants : Mr. Satish Gupta, G.A. Hon’ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 16/09/2025 1. The applicant has preferred this Second Bail Application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. in connection with Crime No. 333/2024, registered at Police Station Tarbahar District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh for the offences punishable under Sections 103, 238, 3(5) of BNS. 2. Earlier bail application was withdrawn by the learned Sr. Counsel on 28.02.2025 vide MCRC No. 1630/2025. 3. The prosecution story in brief is that the complainant Vinod Kumar Digitally signed by JYOTI JHA Date: 2025.09.18 12:02:32 +0530 2 lodged a report alleging that his nephew Hariom Singh was beaten by Indrajeet Yadav, Suyash Singh Rajput and one other person on the night of 24.10.2024 with regard to some money dispute. That it is alleged against the present applicant that they got the victim picked up from his home at the night of 24.10.2024 and took him to their place of work where he was beaten by the present applicant along with some other person namely Saksham Pandey, Suyash Singh, Santoshi Soni, Tushar Majumdar & Indrajit Yadav and then in the morning of 25.10.2024 at about 6 am he was left near his place of residence in an injured state. Thereafter he was taken to hospital where after being treated he succumbed to his injuries on 25.10.2024 at about 2:15 PM. Thereafter on the report of Compliment, FIR was lodged for the offence under section 103, 238, 3(5), of BNS and thereafter the applicant has been arrested on 28.10.2024. 4. It was argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that there is only two incriminating material in charge-sheet against the applicant. As per prosecution case, guard (PW-8) has identified the present applicant, however during the course of trial, the evidence of the guard has been recorded by the trial Court and the Guard (PW-8) has not supported the prosecution case. He further submits that no named FIR has been lodged against the present applicant. He further submits that despite of bailable warrant against the complaint and relative of complaint, they did not appear before the trial Court for recording their evidences. Further the prosecution has examined 10 witnesses out of 33 witnesses. He is in jail since 28.10.2024 therefore looking to the detention period of applicant, he prays for considering the case of the 3 applicant for grant of bail. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application and submits that there is ample evidence on record to connect the applicant with commission of the offence. For which, the applicant has not given any plausible explanation. Trial is going on and 10 witnesses have already been examined, therefore, his bail application is liable to be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary produced by the learned counsel for the State. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the rival submissions made by the parties, prima facie involvement of the applicant along with the co-accused persons in the alleged offence is evident, the manner in which they assaulted the deceased inflicting 17 injuries resulting to his death, and looking to the nature and gravity of the offence, I am inclined to release the applicant on bail. Accordingly, his bail application filed under Section 483 of the BNSS is hereby rejected. 8. However, this Court hope and trust that the trial Court shall make an earnest endeavour to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible, if there is no legal impediment. 9. Office is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Jyoti