1 / 3 2025:CGHC:53376 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 8006 of 2025 Santuram Usendi S/o Gannuram Usendi Aged About 28 Years R/o Bhoomkam P.S. Kasansur (Etapalli) Dist- Garhchirauli (M.H.) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through- P.S. Bande, Dist- Kanker (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Satyendra Shrivas, Advocate For State /Respondent : Mr. Sanjeev Pandey, Dy AG (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board 31/10/2025 1. This is the second bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Shuraksha Sanhita for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested on 07/02/2020 in connection with Crime No. 10/2020, registered at Police Station Bande, Dist Kanker, C.G. for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 307 of IPC. 2. Earlier the first bail application bearing M.Cr.C. No.3081 of 2023 was dismissed as withdrawn on 23/06/2023 with liberty to repeat after examination of eye witness. ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA Date: 2025.11.04 10:54:04 +0530 2 / 3 3. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 06/02/2020 at 04.00 P.M. while Gannuram took the present applicant to the house of Chaituram for his mental treatment and when they were sitting at that time the applicant assaulted Chaituram with an iron rod (sabbal) on his head and assaulted Chaituram’s daughter who was sweeping nearby and on being intercepted by the elder daughter of Chaituram, the applicant also assaulted her on her head due to which she died on the spot. Thereafter, the present applicant was arrested. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the prosecution witnesses have categorically deposed that the applicant is a mentally sick person whose treatment is going on. He would next contend that out of 18 only 10 witnesses have been examined, therefore, the trial is likely to take some more time. He would next contend that out of 10 witnesses no independent witness has supported the case of the prosecution and all have turned hostile. He would next contend that the doctor has mentioned that the injury has been caused by the sharp object whereas the weapon seized is an iron rod which is an hard and blunt object, therefore, the injury could not have been inflicted by the seized weapon. He would lastly contend that the applicant is in jail since 07/02/2020, therefore, he may be enlarged on bail. 5. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bail. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 7. Considering the entire facts & circumstances of the case since the trial is pending and particularly looking to the nature & gravity of offence as the 3 / 3 applicant has committed the murder and also inflicted serious injuries to the other persons, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail. 8. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected. However, learned trial Court is directed to conclude the trial expeditiously as soon as possible preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order, if there is no legal impediment. 9. Office is directed to sent a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. SD/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE ashu