1 2025:CGHC:58394 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 9489 of 2025 Daduram Patel @ Bhuneshwar S/o Labho Prasad Patel Aged About 23 Years R/o Village Dabhrakhurd P.S. Birra, District- Janjgir- Champa Chhattisgarh --- Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh through Police Station Birra, District- Janjgir- Champa Chhattisgarh --- Respondent MCRC No. 9516 of 2025 1 - Raj Kewant S/o Amarnath Kewant Aged About 19 Years R/o Village Dabhrakhurd, P.S. Birra, District Janjgir-Champa C.G. 2 - Dayaram Patel S/o Laxmi Patel Aged About 37 Years R/o Village Dabhrakhurd, P.S. Birra, District Janjgir-Champa C.G. --- Applicants Versus State of Chhattisgarh through Police Station - Birra, District Janjgir- Champa C.G. --- Respondent For the applicants : Mr. Sushil Dubey, Advocate For the State : Mr. G.L. Ukey, Panel Lawyer For the objector : Ms. Sareena Khan, Advocate ALLENA ANNAJEE RAO Digitally signed by ALLENA ANNAJEE RAO Date: 2025.12.03 14:25:55 +0530 2 (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Order on Board 02.12.2025 1. These are two second bail applications filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicants in Crime No.23/2025 registered at Police Station Birra, District Janjgir Champa (CG) for the offences under Sections 296, 115(2), 351(2), 191(2), 103(2) of BNS. Since both these applications are relating to the same crime number, they are disposed of by this common order. 2. The first bail applications of the applicants Raj Kewant, Dayaram Patel and Daduram Patel @ Bhuneshwar have been dismissed by order dated 21.07.2925 passed in MCRC No.5069/2025 & 5147 of 2025. 3. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 14.03.2025 at about 3.00 p.m., when complainant Ankur Vaishnav and deceased Chtranshu Patel were coming to village Dabharakhurd on Holi festival day, due to old enmity the present applicants alongwith other accused assaulted Chitranshu Patel with hands and fists and bamboo sticks and also threatened to kill him. Applicant Dayaram Patel assaulted complainant Ankur Vaishnav and co-accused Darasram Patel threatened to kill him and said to flee away or else he would be killed. It is further alleged that because of the assault caused by the applicants, injured victim Chitranshu Patel sustained serious head injuries, as a result of which, he died during treatment on 18.03.2025. On the report being lodged, offence under the aforesaid sections have been registered against the applicants. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the present applicants have been falsely implicated in this case on account of old enmity between the parties. He submits that the allegation against the applicants Raj Kewant and Dayaram is that they have assaulted with mere hands and fists and they have not used any lathi or stick in the assault, therefore, no grievous injuries were caused by these applicants. He submits that the applicants Daduram Patel and Dayaram Patel are in jail since 22.03.2025 and applicant Raj Kewant is in jail since 21.03.2025 and 3 till date out of a total 20 witnesses, only 9 have been examined and there is no immediate possibility of disposal of case, therefore, the applicants may be enlarged on bail at this stage. 5. Per contra, learned State Counsel as also learned counsel appearing for the objector oppose the bail application and submit that the trial is in progress. They submit that accused Daduram Patel and Darasram Patel assaulted the deceased with stick and bamboo stick while the other accused persons were assaulting with hands and fists. They further submit that the postmortem report shows that the death was due to head injury and there was an eye witness to the incident who is the complainant Ankur Vaishnav and he has been examined before the trial Court as P.W.5 who has categorically supported the prosecution case. 6. Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and the material available on record, I do not find any changing circumstances in this case after rejecting the first bail applications of these applicants on 21.07.2025. Therefore, it is not a fit case to release the applicants on bail. Accordingly, this bail application is rejected. 7. However, looking to the custody period of the applicants, the trial Court is directed to expedite the trial as early as possible preferably within a period of 4 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 8. Copy of this order be sent to the trial Court for information. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Rao 4