1 2026:CGHC:22208 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRC No. 4439 of 2026 Mukesh Kumar Ravi S/o Shri Lt. Ramnath Ravi Aged About 33 Years (Wrongly Mentioned As 32), R/o Village- Dandi, Police Station- Dandi (Wrongly Mentioned As Dndai Dt), Garhwa Jharkhand. ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station - Kota Op. Belgahanan, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent (Cause title is taken from the CIS) ___________________________________________________________ For Applicant : Mr. Yashkarn Singh, Advocate For State-Respondent : Mr. Dharmesh Srivastava, Dy. AG ___________________________________________________________ Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Order on Board 12/05/2026 1. This is second bail application. The first bail application MCRC No. 9971 of 2025 is rejected on merits by this Court vide order dated 05.12.2025. The second bail application filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant VASANT KUMAR Digitally signed by VASANT KUMAR Date: 2026.05.12 15:42:15 +0530 2 who has been arrested in connection with Crime No.245/2025 registered at Police Station Kota, District Bilaspur (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 103(1), 238 (A) of BNS. 2. Case of prosecution, in brief, is that on 10.03.2025 On 10.03.2025, the applicant allegedly quarreled over a land dispute, and later the same night killed his nephew by hitting him with a coal stone and concealed the body under a coal heap. On 15.03.2025, the body was recovered near the railway line upon information of foul smell, leading to registration of FIR and arrest of the applicant. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that this is second bail application and the first bail application MCRC No. 9971 of 2025 is rejected on merits by this Court vide order dated 05.12.2025 and thereafter the prosecution witnesses have not been examined though the bailable warrant was issued against some prosecution witnesses, but the witnesses had not appeared for recording the statement. He further contended that the applicant is in jail since 25.03.2025 and the trial will take considerable time for its conclusion, therefore, the applicant may be released on bail. 4. Learned State Counsel opposed the submission made by learned counsel for the applicant and contended that some prosecution witnesses are examined and bailable warrant was issued against some prosecution witnesses. He further contended that the trial is 3 also going on and the offence committed by the applicant is heinous in nature, therefore, applicant may not be released on bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts of the case, material available in the case diary. Further considering the fact that the first bail application has already been rejected on merits by this Court and there is no change in circumstances to consider this second bail application. Therefore, this Court is of the view that it is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant on bail. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant stands rejected. 8. However, this Court hopes and trust that the trial Court shall make an earnest endeavour to secure the presence of the prosecution witnesses and decide the matter as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law. 9. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Vasant