1 2025:CGHC:46714 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 7325 of 2025 1 - Mohit Ram Tigga S/o Shri Tilak Ram Tigga Aged About 34 Years R/o Lipti Neechepara, Police Station- Kapu, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station- Kapu, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ---Non-applicants For applicants : Ms. Sharmila Singhai, Sr. Advocate along with Mr. Kanchan Kalwani, Advocate For-Non-applicants : Ms. Upasana Mehta, Dy. G. A. Hon’ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 12/09/2025 1. The applicants has preferred this Second Bail Application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. in connection with Crime No. 39/2024, registered at Police Station Kapu District Raigarh Chhattisgarh for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 2. Earlier bail application was dismissed on merits on 10.03.2025 in MCRC No. 1945/2025. 2 3. Brief facts of this case is that the applicant along with Sarpanch and village Kotwar had given the merg intimation on 01.02.2024 at the Police Station with the averment that the deceased Santosh Tigga and applicant are real brothers, the deceased entered applicant’s house by jumping over the wall and was trying to wake up the applicant by shouting but when the applicant did not wake up he broke the glass of applicants car with a brick and at the time he was drunk, he removed his clothes before his house and after some time he was found dead near his house, so on the basis of said information merg was registered and after preliminary investigation FIR was registered on 21.03.2024 alleging that he has committed the alleged offence and after completing of the investigation chargesheet was filed. The applicant was arrested on 23.03.2024. 4. It was argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the second bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant only on the ground of detention of applicant as the applicant is languishing in jail since 23.03.2024. She further submits that there is delay of one month and 20 days in lodging the FIR. Moreover the material witnesses have been examined before the trial Court and they did not depose anything against the application, therefore there is substantial change of circumstance. Therefore she prays for considering the case of the 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 appellant with commission of the offence. For which, the applicant has not given any plausible explanation, therefore, the bail 3 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 circumstance of the case and particularly the facts that the deceased and present applicant are real brothers and on the date of incident, the deceased himself entered the house of the applicant in a drunken condition and broke the glass of applicant’s car, moreover that material witnesses including wife of the deceased have already been examined before the trial Court and there is a delay of one month in lodging the FIR and they turned hostile, this Court is of the opinion that there is substantial change of circumstance and the trial is likely to take sometime for its conclusion and the applicant is in jail since 23.03.2025, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. Accordingly, MCRC is allowed. 8. Let applicant, Mohit Ram Tigga involved in Crime No. 39/2024, under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC, Police Station – Kapu, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. 4 (ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against them under Section 269 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sahita, 2023 (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS 2023. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sahita, 2023 (iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 351 of BNSS 2023 If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against them in accordance with law. 9. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Jyoti