1 2025:CGHC:60014 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 9869 of 2025 Naresh Vishwakarma S/o Shri Ramlal Vishwakarma Aged About 30 Years Caste- Lohar, R/o Village- Budeli, Police Station And Tahsil- Baramkela, District- Sarangarh- Bilaigarh (C.G.) ... Applicant versus The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Officer In Charge Of Police Station- Sarangarh, District- Sarangarh- Bilaigarh (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Roopram Naik, Advocate For Respondent/State : Dr. Surendra Kumar Dewangan, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order On Board 10/12/2025 1. The applicant has preferred this 2nd bail application under Section 483 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita Act 2023 for grant of regular bail as he is arrested in connection with crime No. 829/2024, registered at Police Station – Sarangarh, District- SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Digitally signed by SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Date: 2025.12.11 11:53:19 +0530 2 Sarangarh Bilaigarh (C.G.) for offence punishable under Section 103 (1) of BNS. 2. First bail of the applicant was rejected on merits vide order dated 16.06.2025 passed in MCRC No.3924/2025. 3. The allegation against the applicant is that on the date of offence i.e. 20.12.2024 at about 10:00 pm, the applicant asked for liquor from the deceased Chhabilal Patel, and when he said that he was not selling liquor, the applicant assaulted the deceased with hands and fists. It is also alleged that the applicant strangulated the neck of the deceased, due to which he died. Based on this, offence has been registered against the present applicant. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. He next submits that eye-witnesses of the case have been examined before the Trial Court and they have not supported the case of prosecution. He further submits that the applicant is in jail since 22.12.2024, out of 17 prosecution witnesses, only 7 have been examined till date and the trial is likely to some time to be finalized, therefore, it is prayed that the applicant may be enlarged on bail. 5. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the bail application and submits that looking to the nature of offence, the applicant may not be released on bail. 6. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and evidence collected by the prosecution against the applicant, without further commenting on merits of the case, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail. 8. Accordingly, the bail application is Rejected. 3 9. However, considering the fact that out of 17 prosecution witnesses, only 7 have been examined till date and the applicant is in jail since 22.12.2024. In view of above, the concerned Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and to ensure that the trial is concluded as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of 4 months from today. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Shubham