1 2026:CGHC:22902 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 4507 of 2026 Virendra Kumar Pardhi @ Vira S/o Jagdish Pardhi Aged About 24 Years R/o Bairagi Mohalla Power Hause Bhilai Ps Chhawni District Durg (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Ps Koni Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) ---- Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Dheerendra Pandey, Advocate. For Non-Applicant : Ms. Vaishali Mahilong, Dy. Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 14.05.2026 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. 192/2024 registered at Police Station- Koni, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 307, 120B and 34 of IPC. 2. Earlier the first bail application of the applicant being MCRC No. 3016/2026 was rejected by this Court vide order dated 06.04.2026, on merits. Hence, this second bail application. 3. The prosecution story in brief, is that on 30.05.2024 at about 11:30 KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 PM, the injured Lavkesh Rao Bhosale @ Lavi was sitting a Glory Dhaba when an unknown person assaulted him with a sharp-edged weapon on his face with the intention to kill him, During investigation, it was revealed that the present applicant Virendra Kumar Pardhi @ Veera, along with co-accused persons, had hatched a criminal conspiracy, came to Bilaspur, identified the victim at the dhaba, and the applicant, being the main assailant, took out a knife from the motorcycle and inflicted injuries on the face and neck of the victim and thereafter fled from the spot. Accordingly, offence under Sections 307, 120-B, 201 and 34 of IPC was registered and the matter is under trial. Hence, the bail application. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is an innocent person and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that no overt act has been attributed to the present applicant and, therefore, he is entitled to be enlarged on bail. Learned counsel further submits that even if the entire prosecution story is taken at its face value, the offences punishable under Sections 307, 120-B and 34 of the IPC are not made out against the present applicant, as the allegations against him are based only upon the false statement of the complainant, which is not admissible in evidence. It is also submitted that except the memorandum statement of the accused/applicant, no legal and cogent evidence has been collected by the prosecution against the present applicant. He further submits that the prosecution has already examined as many as seven material witnesses before the trial Court and none of them have supported the case of the 3 prosecution and they have also failed to identify the present applicant during the course of their examination before the Court, which constitutes a substantial change in circumstance and is a strong ground for grant of bail to the applicant. It is further submitted that the co-accused persons have already been granted bail by this Court in MCRC No. 6743/2026 and MCRC No. 4633/2026 and the case of the present applicant is similar in nature, therefore, on the ground of parity also, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail. 5. Learned counsel further submits that the applicant is in judicial custody since 27.06.2025. It is also submitted that earlier the first bail application of the applicant bearing MCRC No. 3016/2026 was rejected by this Court vide order dated 06.04.2026 on merits, however, thereafter, during the course of trial, the complainant/injured has been examined before the trial Court and he has turned hostile and has not identified the present applicant, which constitutes a fresh and new ground for filing the present second bail application. Accordingly, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant. 6. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the present applicant/accused, namely Virendra Kumar Pardhi @ Veera, is the main assailant in the present case, who, in furtherance of a pre-planned conspiracy hatched along with other co-accused persons, inflicted grievous injuries upon the victim/injured by means of a sharp-edged weapon on his face and neck with an intention to cause his death. It is further submitted that the role attributed to the present applicant is 4 distinct and more serious in nature from that of the other co- accused persons. She further submits that although certain co- accused persons have been granted bail by this Court, their cases were specifically distinguished from that of the present applicant and bail was granted to them considering their limited role, whereas the present applicant has been specifically alleged to be the main assailant. It is also submitted that the first bail application of the present applicant has already been rejected by this Court on merits and there is no substantial change in circumstances warranting reconsideration of the same. She further argues that the fact that the complainant/injured has turned hostile before the trial Court itself indicates that the witnesses are being influenced and the evidence is being tampered with and therefore, no indulgence in favour of the present applicant is warranted. 7. I have heard, learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary with utmost circumspection. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the nature and gravity of allegations levelled against the present applicant and the specific role attributed to him as the main assailant, who is alleged to have inflicted grievous injuries upon the victim by means of a sharp-edged weapon on his face and neck with intention to cause his death, coupled with the fact that the first bail application of the applicant has already been rejected by this Court on merits vide order passed in MCRC No. 3016/2026 dated 06.04.2026, this Court is of the considered opinion that no substantial change in circumstances has been made out so as to 5 warrant reconsideration of the prayer for bail. Merely because the complainant/injured has turned hostile before the trial Court and has not identified the present applicant, the same by itself cannot be treated as a decisive circumstance at this stage, particularly when the entire evidence is yet to be appreciated by the trial Court during the course of trial. Moreover, the possibility of tampering with prosecution evidence and influencing witnesses cannot be ruled out, especially in view of the fact that the injured witness has already resiled from his earlier statement before the Court. Further, the co-accused persons who have been granted bail were extended such benefit on account of their distinguishable and lesser role, whereas the present applicant stands on a different footing being the main assailant in the incident. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the present applicant. 9. Accordingly, the second bail application of the applicant- Virendra Kumar Pardhi, filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, involved in Crime No. 192/2024 registered at Police Station- Koni, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 307, 120B and 34 of IPC, is rejected. 10. Needless to say that the trial Court 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 forthwith. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal