1 2025:CGHC:5182 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 714 of 2025 1 - Santosh Yadav S/o Dashrath Yadav Aged About 37 Years R/o Ganesh Nagar Nayapara, Police Station- Sirgitti, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Applicant Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer, Police Station- Sirgitti, District- Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, Advocate For Non-Applicant : Mr. Santosh Soni, Government Advocate SB: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge ORDER ON BOARD 29/01/2025 1. This is the second bail application. The first bail application was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 27.02.2024 in M.Cr.C No. 1176/2024 with liberty to repeat the prayer after examination of the material witnesses. 2. This bail application is filed by the applicant under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 351/2023 (wrongly mentioned 351/2022 in the order-sheet) registered at Police Station – Sirgitti, District – Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Sections 25 & 27 of the Arms Act, 1959. SHUBHAM DEY Digitally signed by SHUBHAM DEY 2 3. Case of the prosecution is that, on 16.05.2023 at about 06 P.M. Monu @ Pawan Soni was standing infront of Betel Shop (Pan Shop) of Pintu Yadav, at that relevant point of time, Ramu Yadav along with 12 other co- accused persons came there armed with sharp edged weapons and club and have started assaulting the deceased Pawan Soni due to which, he suffered injuries over his person and succumbed to his injuries on the spot. The incident was reported to the concerned police station, upon which, aforementioned crime was registered and the applicant was arrested. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submit that applicant is innocent, he has been falsely implicated in the instant crime, he has not committed any offence as alleged. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the submission made by learned counsel for the applicant and would submit that there are eye- witnesses to the incident and from the documents enclosed along with the application, it appears that two of the eye-witnesses are still to be examined before the Trial Court. He also contended that there are two criminal antecedents against the applicant. 6. After arguing for sometime, learned counsel for the applicant submits that he may be permitted to withdraw this application at this stage. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties. 8. In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant, this application is dismissed as withdrawn. Certified copy as per rules. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Dey