1 2026:CGHC:2315 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 219 of 2026 1 - Tushar Majumdar S/o Kalyan Majumdar Aged About 30 Years R/o Radhika Vihar Phase 2, Police Station - Sarkanda, District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station - Tarbahar, Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Shri Manoj Paranjape, Sr. Counsel assisted by Shri Arpan Verma, Advocate For Respondent/State : Ms. Supriya Upasne, GA (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE ARVIND KUAMR VERMA) Order on Board 14/01/2026 The applicant has filed this second bail application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrrik Suraksha Sanhita for grant of regular bail as he is in custody in connection with Crime No. 333/2024 registered at SUGUNA DUBEY Digitally signed by SUGUNA DUBEY Date: 2026.01.15 15:50:51 +0530 2 police station Tarbahar, District Bilaspur (CG) for the offence punishable under Sections 103, 238 and 3(5) of the BNS. The earlier bail application preferred by the applicant was dismissed on merits by this Court vide order dated 25.03.2025 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 1687 of 2025. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that out of 33 prosecution witnesses, only 9 witnesses have been examined so far, and therefore, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the applicant in further judicial custody for an indefinite period. Per contra, learned State Counsel vehemently opposes the bail application and submits that there is no material or substantial change in circumstances after dismissal of the earlier bail application onmerits, and hence, the applicant is not entitled to the relief of bail. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. This Court has considered the fact that the first bail application was dismissed on merits and that there is no substantial change either in the factual or legal circumstances of the case so as to warrant reconsideration of the prayer for bail. However, it is noticed from the record that the trial Court had issued summons on 13.03.2025 to witnesses V. Vinod Kumar, Sangeeta Singh and Sanjeev Verma. Thereafter, summons were repeatedly issued by the trial Court on several subsequent dates, namely 3 26.03.2025, 23.04.2025, 25.04.2025, 29.04.2025, 31.05.2025, 27.06.2025, 28.06.2025, 09.07.2025, 11.07.2025, 23.07.2025,24.07.2025, 25.07.2025, 06.08.2025, 08.08.2025, 25.08.2025, 26.08.2025, 28.08.2025, 09.09.2025, 11.09.2025, 25.09.2025, 16.10.2025, 17.10.2025, 20.11.2025, 05.12.2025, 06.12.2025 and 29.12.2025. On most of the aforesaid dates, the said witnesses were not present before the trial Court for recording of their statements. The record further reflects that on 05.12.2025, witnesses V. Vinod Kumar and Sangeeta Singh were present before the Court; however, their statements could not be recorded and statements of other witnesses were recorded instead. It also transpires that on 23.04.2025, witness Sanjeev Verma was present before the trial Court, but owing to the fact that the learned Presiding Officer was on leave, the matter was adjourned and fresh notices were again issued. It is further evident that on 09.07.2025, the statement of Sanjeev Verma was recorded as PW-3, whereas V. Vinod Kumar was present before the Court, but his statement could not be recorded. In view of the above the trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of this order. The Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur is also directed to ensure effective service of summons upon witnesses V. Vinod Kumar, Sangeeta Singh and Madhusudan Singh, and to secure their presence before the trial Court. The trial Court is further directed to ensure that the aforesaid 4 witnesses remain present on the dates fixed and that their statements are recorded without unnecessary adjournments. This Court expects and trusts that the trial Court shall adhere to the timeline indicated hereinabove. The parties are directed to cooperate in the trial. With the aforesaid directions, the second bail application stands rejected. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge