Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 5873 (CHH)

DEVENDRA CHANDRAKAR v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

MCRC/886/2025 · 2025-01-31

Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2025:CGHC:5920 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 886 of 2025 Devendra Chandrakar S/o Lup Singh Chandrakar Aged About 22 Years R/o Sokhatal Chowki - Khandsara, Police Station - Bemetara, District Bemetara (C.G.). ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Chowki - Khandsara, Police Station – Bemetara, District- Bemetara (C.G.). …Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Aman Kesharwani, Advocate For respondent/State : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, G.A. Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. Order on Board 31/01/2025 1. This is the second bail application filed by the applicant. The first bail application of the applicant has been dismissed as withdrawn after arguing for some time vide order dated 26.11.2024 passed in MCRC No.7425 of 2024. At the time of dismissal of the first bail application of the applicant, liberty was granted to the him to revive his prayer for bail after prosecution as well witnesses of school record is examined. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that after rejection of first bail application three witnesses have been examined and it comes on Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2025.02.05 17:56:51 +0530 2 record that the victim was having love affair with the appellant and he is in jail since 17.08.2024 and therefore, he has filed second bail application. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes. 4. From perusal of the order dated 26.11.2024, it appears that while dismissing the first bail application the liberty was reserved to the applicant to revive his prayer for bail after examination of prosecution witnesses as well as witness of school record. However, only the victim PW-1 her father PW-2 and her grand mother PW-3 have been examined and the other witnesses including the witness to the school record are yet to be examined. 5. Therefore, I do not found any good ground to admit the second bail application of the applicant, therefore, it is dismissed at motion stage itself. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Vaibhav