1 2026:CGHC:6615 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 10448 of 2025 Ratan Das Urf Pappu S/o Shri Gautam Das Aged About 24 Years R/o Gatapara Singhanpur, P.S. Basna, Distt. Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Pithora, Distt. Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Applicant : Mr. Ghanshyam Kashyap, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, G.A. Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 05/02/2026 1. This is the Second Bail Application filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant, who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 190/2024, registered at P.S.- Pithora, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) for commission of 2 offence punishable under Section 103(1), 61(2), 238, 3(5) of the BNS, 2023. 2. First Bail Application bearing MCRC No. 6143 of 2025 was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide its order dated 05.08.2025. 3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that a merg No. 41/2024 is registered on the basis of intimation given by Johan Devdas regarding death of deceased Kalamkar Meshram and during search a slip of Raj Fuels Mahasamund was found in his pocket so the CCTV footage were seen and the same was matched from the CCTV footage of toll plaza, in which, deceased were seen with the applicant and alongwith another accused. Wife of deceased identified the dead body of deceased and during search, car of deceased was recovered in which the applicant/Ku. Belmati Seth @ Baby was arrested from Mathura city of Uttar-Pradesh. Her memorandum statement is recorded, in which, she stated about the commission of offence by the co-accused, therefore, the applicant and co-accused were arrested in the aforesaid crime/offence. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case, he has not committed any offence as alleged. Only on the basis of his memorandum statement, applicant has been arrested and implicated in this case. The prosecution has not produced any specific material/ evidence against the applicant, except his memorandum 3 statement, there is no any previous criminal antecedent registered against the applicant, he is in jail since 18.09.2024. investigation is complete, charge-sheet has been filed. Out of 17 witnesses, 6 witnesses have been examined. This second bail application is filed in change circumstances, as there is a the material witnesses have turned hostile, therefore, the applicant may be enlarged on bail. 5. Per contra, learned State Counsel opposes the submission of counsel for the applicant. 6. Heard learned counsel for the both the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Considering facts of the case, nature of allegation, submissions of counsel for the parties, this Court does not find any substantial change in the circumstances and the witnesses have not completely turned hostile, hence, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present applicant is not entitled to be enlarged on bail. 8. Accordingly, the present bail application is hereby rejected. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Madhurima