1 2025:CGHC:51744 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 8365 of 2025 Pitamber Yadu @ Bhupendra Yadu S/o Banafar Yadu Aged About 24 Years R/o Ramsagar Para Ward Bhatapara, P.S. Bhatapara City, Taluka Bhatapara, District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara ...Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Bhatapara City, District- Balodabazar- BhataparaC.G. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Shobhit Koshta, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Vaishali Mahilong, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 16.10.2025 1. The applicant has preferred this Second Bail Application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 230/2024, registered at Police Station : Bhatapara city District – (C.G) for the offence punishable under Section 307 and read with Section 34 of the IPC. 2. The earlier bail application of the applicant has been rejected on merits by this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 30.09.2024 passed in VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2025.10.27 14:39:40 +0530 2 MCRC No. 6745 of 2024. 3. The prosecution story in short is that the complainant/wife of injured lodged a report that on 02.05.2024 at 10 am, her son Mangal Yadav had a dispute with Dilip Yadav, son of Banafar Yadav. Later that night, around 12:30 am on 2-3.05.2024, Pitambar Yadav and others came to her house, abused her and her mother, and threatened to kill her son. They then attacked her husband, Phaguwa Yadav, with sticks and rods, causing severe head and leg injuries. Based on the complainant's report, a case was registered under Sections 307 and 34 of the IPC, and the accused was arrested and jailed. After investigation, a charge-sheet was filed in court and thereafter, report was lodged and the concerned police station after investigation filed the charge sheet. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated. the applicant is innocent and has not committed any offence as alleged by the police of Police Station Bhatapara City, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.). The applicant has been falsely implicated, and a false report has been lodged against him. In the FIR and court statement, the injured has stated that he was assaulted by five persons but has not named the present applicant, and the other suspected persons have also not been made accused in the case, which clearly shows that the prosecution story is false. Furthermore, PW-1 (Faguva Yadav) has been declared hostile and specifically stated in his evidence that five persons came to assault them, but he does not know who assaulted him, and the other prosecution witnesses have also been declared hostile. Collective copies of 3 statements of prosecution witnesses (PW-1 to PW-4) are filed herewith as Annexure A-4. Alternatively, there was no intention on the part of the applicant to cause the death of the injured, and from the prosecution case, it appears that the injured and his family members were the aggressors, and the injuries occurred due to the injured’s own fall in a drunken state. Due to previous enmity, the applicant and others have been falsely implicated, which has been found untrue during investigation. The medical report also states that no definite opinion can be given as to whether the injury was fatal or capable of causing death. The injuries sustained are not of such nature as to attract Section 307 of IPC, and the injured was not hospitalized for 20 days. The applicant has been in jail since 30.05.2024, i.e., for more than one year and five months, and only four prosecution witnesses have been examined, showing considerable delay in trial for no fault of the applicant, therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant. 5. On the other hand, learned State Counsel appearing for the respondent/State opposes the bail application and submits that when the injured, who is the husband of the complainant, was sleeping at his house, the applicant, who is named in the FIR along with five other unknown persons, entered the complainant’s house and mercilessly assaulted the injured with a hard and blunt object, on account of which the injured sustained injuries on his head and legs. It is further submitted that in his statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., the injured stated that it was the applicant and co-accused, namely, Dilip Yadu, along with other unknown persons, who had assaulted him. The applicant is specifically named in the FIR. Learned State Counsel also submits that the medical examination report of the 4 injured indicates that he sustained injuries on his temporal bone and, as per the CT Brain report, his parietal bone was found fractured. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the offence, and the material available in the case diary, it is observed that when the injured, who is the complainant’s husband, was sleeping at his house, the applicant, who is named in the FIR along with five other unknown persons, entered the complainant’s house and mercilessly assaulted the injured with a hard and blunt object, as a result of which he sustained grievous injuries on his head and legs. Further, in his statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., the injured stated that it was the applicant and co-accused, namely, Dilip Yadu, along with other unknown persons, who had assaulted him. The medical examination report of the injured shows that he sustained injuries on his temporal bone and, as per the CT Brain report, his parietal bone was found to be fractured. Considering that no new ground has been raised in this second bail application, and keeping in view the seriousness of the allegations against the applicant, this Court is of the considered opinion that the second bail application filed by the applicant deserves to be rejected. 8. Accordingly, the second bail application of the applicant, Pitamber Yadu @ Bhupendra Yadu, involved in Crime No. 230/2024, registered at Police Station : Bhatapara city District – (C.G) for the offence punishable under Section 307 and read with Section 34 of the 5 IPC, is rejected. 9. However, this Court hopes and trusts that the trial Court shall make an earnest endeavor to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible within a period of three months from the receipt of a certified copy of this order in accordance with law, if there is no legal impediment. 10. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice vaibhav