1 2025:CGHC:55593 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 9194 of 2025 Rupesh Baghel S/o Shri Lachchhuram Baghel Aged About 29 Years R/o Village - Bhainsasur Nayapara, P.S. Siksod, District - North Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Siksod, Distt. North Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Rajendra Patel, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Verma, Panel Lawyer Order on Board 14.11.2025 1. This is the Second bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 04/2024 registered at Police Station- Siksod, District- North Bastar Kanker (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 307, 450 of the IPC. MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2025.11.14 16:01:39 +0530 2 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that it was an allegation against the applicant, that he is having love affair with the victim and on the 07-08/05/2024, the applicant went to the house of the victim and cause injury near to head by iron pipe, stating that she is not talking with the applicant. The victim was hospitalized till 13/5/24. Hence an offence under aforesaid section was registered against the applicant. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the first bail application of the applicant i.e. MCRC No. 7461/2024 was rejected by this Court on merits vide order dated 24.10.2024, therefore this second bail application is filed on the ground that subsequent to the rejection of the earlier application, there has been a substantial change in circumstances. It is submitted that nine prosecution witnesses, including the injured victim and other material eyewitnesses, have now been examined before the learned trial Court. The deposition of these crucial witnesses has already been recorded in full, and nothing remains to be elicited against the applicant through further examination. 4. It is further submitted that since all material witnesses have been examined, the possibility of the applicant influencing or tampering with the prosecution evidence does not survive. The applicant has remained in judicial custody since 09.05.2024, and considering the nature of allegations as well as the progress of the trial, further detention of the applicant would amount to unnecessary pre-trial incarceration. The applicant is a young individual with no criminal 3 antecedents, and his continued detention would cause irreparable prejudice to his future prospects. Therefore, in light of the changed circumstances and the completion of examination of key witnesses, the applicant prays for grant of bail in the interest of justice. 5. Learned State counsel, opposing the bail application, submits that the present is the second bail application of the applicant, whose earlier application was dismissed on merits, and no new substantial ground has been raised warranting reconsideration. It is submitted that the applicant is facing trial for serious offences, and the allegations against him are grave in nature. The injured victim has consistently named the applicant as the assailant, and his implication is supported by the medical evidence as well as other prosecution witnesses examined during trial. 6. It is further submitted that although some witnesses have been examined, several material witnesses are yet to be produced, and releasing the applicant at this stage may adversely affect the fair progression of the trial. Considering the seriousness of the charges, the nature of injuries inflicted on the victim, the role attributed to the applicant, and the fact that the earlier bail was rejected on merits, no case for grant of bail is made out. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 4 8. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and upon perusal of the case diary as well as the record of the trial proceedings, this Court finds that the first bail application of the applicant was earlier rejected on merits, and no new circumstance of such significance has been brought on record that would warrant a different view. The allegations against the applicant are of a serious nature, and the injured victim has consistently attributed a specific overt act to the applicant. The medical evidence corroborates the version of the prosecution. Though some witnesses, including the injured, have been examined, several material witnesses are yet to testify, and the possibility of the applicant influencing the remaining witnesses cannot be ruled out. Considering the gravity of the offence, the nature of injuries sustained by the victim, the role assigned to the applicant, and the fact that the earlier bail was rejected on merits, this Court is of the opinion that no case for grant of bail is made out. 9. Accordingly, the bail application filed by the applicant/accused – Rupesh Baghel involved in Crime No. 04/2024 registered at Police Station- Siksod, District- North Bastar Kanker (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 307, 450 of the IPC, is rejected at this stage. 10. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned, is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 5 11. Office is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Manpreet