2025:CGHC:49950 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 7892 of 2025 Fadu Tirkey S/o Late Bhithal Tirkey Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Harri Uraonpara, P.S. Kusmi, Distt. Balrampur-Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The P.S. Kusmi, Distt. Balrampur-Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent (Cause title is taken from the CIS) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Applicant : Shri Hari Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent/State : Ms Sunita Manikpuri, Dy GA ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 07.10.2025 1. Heard on the application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS, 2023). This is the second bail application before this Court filed by the applicant for grant of regular bail, and the First bail application has been rejected on merits vide order dated 20.11.2024 passed in MCRC-6641 of 2024. 2. The applicant was arrested on 29.01.2024 in connection with Crime No.03 of 2024 registered at PS- Kusmi, District- Balrampur-Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 201 r/w 34 of the IPC. Digitally signed by V PADMAVATHI Date: 2025.10.09 10:38:21 +0530 Mcrc 7892 of 2025 2 3. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that only four witnesses have been examined till date, and the trial is not in considerable progress. Father of the deceased has been examined and he stated that there was no dispute between the deceased, and the present applicant. Case of the prosecution is based on the statement of one Chandar Ram, who has not been examined till date, despite the long incarceration of the applicant in jail. There is every possibility of delay in concluding the trial, therefore, applicant may be released on bail. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would oppose the bail application, and submit that four witnesses have already been examined before the learned trial court, and for one reason or the other, the proceeding of the case has been adjourned before the learned trial Court, she would also submit that since the first bail application of the applicant has been dismissed on merits, and the evidence recorded before the learned trial Court is to be considered by it, the applicant is not entitled for bail. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties, and perused the documents annexed with the present bail application. 6. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, also considering nature of allegations against the applicant, as well as material collected during the investigation, further considering that the first bail application of the applicant has been rejected on merits vide order dated 20.11.2024 passed in MCRC-6641 of 2024, and the evidence of Chandar Ram, on whose statement the prosecution case is based, is yet to be recorded, I do Mcrc 7892 of 2025 3 not find any change of circumstances, to allow this second bail application. Accordingly, the second bail application of the applicant is rejected. 7. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is in jail since 29.01.2024, and till date, only four witnesses have been examined before the learned trial Court, it is directed that learned trial Court to expedite the trial, and to conclude the same as early as possible. Certified copy as per rules. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) JUDGE padma