1 2026:CGHC:2820 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 594 of 2026 Ramjeet S/o Late Ramdev Aged About 51 Years R/o Village Karampur, P.S. Vishrampur (Wrongly Mentioned As Bishrampur), Tehsil Surajpur, Distt. Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Vishrampur (Wrongly Mentioned As Bishrampur) Distt. Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Yadav, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, Dy. Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 16/01/2026 1. This is the Second bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 97/2025 registered at Police Station- Vishrampur, District – Surajpur (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 281, 125(A), 105 of BNS and Section 185 of M.V. Act. 2. Earlier first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court being MCRC No. 6210/2025, vide order dated 06.08.2025, on merits. Hence this second bail application. KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 3. Case of the prosecution, in brief is that the complainant, Akshay Kumar, lodged an FIR on 09.05.2025 alleging that, on the same day at around 07:00 PM, his mother, his three-year-old daughter, as well as his sister-in-law and her two-year-eight-month-old daughter were sitting at the doorstep of their house when the present applicant, who was driving an Ertiga car bearing registration number CG-04- MP-3406, drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, lost control and rammed into the house. As a result of the said accident, the two minor children sustained grievous injuries and later they lost their life during medical treatment, while the complainant's mother and sister-in-law also sustained injuries. Based upon such, the aforementioned offences have been registered against the applicant. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case, as the investigating agency has failed to collect any cogent or material evidence against him and the investigation itself suffers from serious discrepancies. It is submitted that the alleged incident was purely accidental. The applicant was driving cautiously and, while giving way to an oncoming vehicle with high-beam headlights during evening hours, momentarily lost visibility and swerved the vehicle in an attempt to avoid children playing near the roadside and a cyclist, which unfortunately resulted in the accident. There was neither any prior enmity nor any intention on the part of the applicant to cause harm. It is further submitted that the applicant has no criminal antecedents, is in judicial custody since 10.05.2025, and the trial is 3 likely to take considerable time for its conclusion. He further submits that the present application is the second bail application, the earlier one having been rejected on merits. The new ground for filing the present application is that out of 17 prosecution witnesses, 07 witnesses have already been examined and have not supported the prosecution case, and there is no direct evidence connecting the applicant with the alleged offence. Accordingly, it is prayed that the applicant be enlarged on regular bail. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bail and submit that the earlier first bail application of the applicant has already been rejected by this Court on merits and further the allegations against the applicant are of a very serious nature, as two innocent minor children aged about three-year-old and two-year- eight-month-old, lost their lives in the incident and two adult members of the family sustained injuries. It is further contended that the applicant was allegedly driving the vehicle under the influence of alcohol and due to his rash and negligent act, the car rammed into the complainant's house, causing the fatal accident, therefore, he is not entitled for grant of regular bail in the present case. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Considering the above submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, as the prosecution witnesses have turned hostile, the same cannot be a good ground for releasing the applicant on bail as the same amounts to only tampering with the evidence. 4 8. From perusal of the record, it transpires that the first bail application of the applicant was earlier rejected on merits. The allegations against the applicant are serious in nature, as due to his rash and negligent driving, two minor children aged about three years and two years eight months lost their lives and two other family members sustained injuries. The gravity of the offence, the fatal injuries caused to innocent victims and the manner of the incident do not warrant grant of bail. Mere non-support by some prosecution witnesses at this stage is not sufÏcient to take a different view and further the trial is in progress and the applicant has failed to raise any ground so as to warrant interference by this Court. 9. Accordingly, the second bail application of the applicant –Ramjeet filed under Section 483 of the B.N.S.S., involved in Crime No. 97/2025 registered at Police Station- Vishrampur, District – Surajpur (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 281, 125(A), 105 of BNS and Section 185 of M.V. Act., is rejected. 10. Needless to say that the trial concerned is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 11. OfÏce is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal