1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 10007 of 2025 1 - Mithun Nishad S/o Bhimsen Nishad Aged About 20 Years R/o Taj Nagar Santoshi Nagar, Tikarapara, Distt.- Raipur (C.G.) ... applicant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, P.S. Tikarapara, Distt.- Raipur, C.G. ... Respondent(s) For applicant (s) : Mr. Tanuj Patwardhan, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajiv Bharat, Govt. Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. Order on board 08.12.2025. 1. This is the second bail application of the applicant. The first bail application of the applicant has been rejected on merits vide order dated 05.05.2025 passed by this Court in MCRC No. 3047/2025. The applicant is arrested on 24.11.2023 in Crime No. 624/2023 registered at P.S. Tikarapara, Dist- Raipur for the offence punishable under Section 302, 34 of IPC. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 20.11.2023 in the night at about 10 pm, when the deceased Dinesh @ Baba along with his two SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Digitally signed by SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Date: 2025.12.09 10:12:54 +0530 2 friends, namely, Istikar Khan, and Mohd Sohail, were coming to their house on Motorcycle, on the way near Mathpuraina Durga Mandir, accused persons stopped them, and tried to remove the key of Motorcycle. Once they protested, accused persons started assaulting Dinesh @ Baba with hands, fists, and kicks. At that time, when they tried to intervene, after assaulting the deceased the accused persons fled away. The deceased was immediately taken to the hospital, where, he died during the treatment, due to grievous injuries. Report has been lodged, present applicant has been arrested on 24.11.2023, and charge-sheet has been filed. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that there are two eye witnesses to the incident, however, they are not turning up to record their evidence before the learned trial Court. The applicant is in jail since 24.11.2023 and till date, only three witnesses have been examined and trial is no in considerable progress, therefore, the applicant has filed this second bail application. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes and has submitted that for presence of the witnesses, a warrant of arrest have been issued against them and in the meantime, the supplementary charge-sheet has also been filed against the absconded accused for which the case was fixed for framing of charge against the accused who had subsequently arrested and supplementary charge-sheet has been filed. The learned trial Court is making all endeavour to expedite the trial of the case. The first bail application of the applicant is rejected on merits and therefore, he is not entitled to be released on bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the bail application. 3 6. It transpires from the document annexed with the bail application that vide order dated 10.06.2025, the non-bailable warrant has been issued against the witnesses, however, they are not turning up and the prosecution could not serve the non-bailable warrant against the witnesses and the case was fixed for recording their evidence, subsequently, the supplementary charge- sheet was filed against the absconded accused Rihaan Ulla Khan and the case was committed vide order dated 29.09.2025 and the case was fixed for framing of charge against the said accused. It further transpires that the accused Rihaan Ulla Khan could not produce before the Court on 10.10.2025, 17.10.2025 and the charges could not be framed against the said accused. 7. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, considering the nature of allegation and the material collected during the investigation against the applicant, further considering the gravity of offence and statement of the eye witnesses Istikar Khan and Mohd. Sohail, the first bail application of the applicant is rejected on merits, I am not inclined to admit this second bail application of the applicant. 8. Considering the detention period of appellant, the learned trial Court is directed to make all his endeavour to expedite the trial of the case as early as possible. The State is also directed to produce the accused before the learned trial Court in each date of hearing, so that the trial of the case may no be obstructed on the ground of non appearance of the accused before the learned trial Court and shall also make their endeavour to produce their witnesses on the date fixed by the learned trial Court. 9. Accordingly, the second bail application of the applicant Mithun Nishad is dismissed at the motion stage. 4 10. A copy of this order shall be forwarded to the State counsel as well as learned trial Court. Sd/- S (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Sagrika