1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 60 of 2026 1 - Sahil Gendre S/o Late Uttara Gendre Aged About 22 Years (Correct Age Mentioned), R/o Mission Parsabhader, P.S.- City Kotwali Balodabazar District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Applicant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station- City Kotwali, District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Ali Afzal Mirza, Adv. For Respondent/State : Mr. Rishiraj Pithwa, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board 07 / 01 / 2026 1. The accused/applicant has moved this second bail application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 for releasing him on regular bail during trial in connection with Crime No. 210/2025 registered at Police Station – City Kotwali, Baloda Bazar, District – Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 103(1), 3(5) of BNS and Section 25 & 27 of Arms Act. HEERA LAL SAHU Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2026.01.08 10:22:36 +0530 2 2. The first bail application of the applicant was dismissed on merit on 04.08.2025 in MCRC No. 5669/2025. 3. As per the prosecution’s case, on 04.03.2025 a report was lodged by Harshit Mishra, brother of the deceased, to the effect that his brother Gyanendra Mishra (deceased) had gone outside on his scooter at about 9:30 pm, and when he did not come till late night at 1 pm, the complainant made a phone call to him about his return on which Gyanendra respondent to return home and disconnected the phone. Again when the complainant made a phone call, at 2:05 am, someone else had informed him on Gyanendra’s mobile that Gyanendra had met with an accident. On that information, the complainant rushed to the place where Gyanendra was lying bleeding on the road and three people were also there including the present applicant and they informed about Gyanendra’s argument with someone else. When the complainant asked Gyanendra, hel told that some one had hit him with sharp edged object and the injures were caused on the thigh of the right leg. The deceased became unconscious and was brought to a private hospital where he died after medical examination. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submit that according to the statement of Harshit Mishra, brother of the deceased, who gave merg 3 intimation, some persons were present with the deceased at the place of incident when he reached there, but the statements of the persons present at the place of occurrence have not been taken by the police. He also submit that co-accused Oman Maris Peter has already been granted bail by this Court in MCRC No. 3025/2025 on 09.06.2025 on the basis that there is no direct evidence against the co-accused and the name of the co-accused is not mentioned in the FIR or in statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. and the same is the case of the present applicant. The applicant is in jail since 05.03.2025, and there is no likelihood of his case being decided in the near future; therefore, the present applicant may be released on bail. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application and submits that there is a seizure of knife from the present applicant, in which human blood was found. He further submits that in the Postmortem report the nature of death is homicidal, the applicant has six criminal antecedents and the co-accused has been granted bail by this Court on the basis that no seizure has been made from the co-accused; therefore, at this stage, he may not be enlarged on bail. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 4 7. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, particularly looking to the material available on record, the evidence collected by the prosecution against the applicant and the nature of crime and further considering the fact that there is no change of circumstances, at this stage, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail. Accordingly, the bail application filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023, is rejected. 8. However, considering the fact that the applicant is in jail since 05.03.2025, and only 5 witnesses out of 15 witnesses have been examined till date, the concerned trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and to ensure that the trial is concluded as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period 4 months from receipt of a copy of this order. 9. Office is directed to sent a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge H.L. Sahu