1 2026:CGHC:25460 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 4847 of 2026 Ajeet Kumar Pathak S/o Mrityunjay Pathak Aged About 30 Years R/o Surya Mandir Road, Yamunanagar, Aurangabad, District - Aurangabad, Bihar (Address Mentioned As Per Chargesheet And Aadhar Card Of The Applicant) ... Petitioner(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Balrampur, District - Balrampur - Ramanujganj (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kamlesh Patel, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vinod Tekam, G.A. for the State. (Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J.) Order on Board 22/06/2026 1. This is the third bail application of the applicant. The first bail application of the applicant was dismissed on merits vide order dated 04.12.2024 passed by this Court in MCRC No. 6021/2024. The said SUMIT KUMAR Digitally signed by SUMIT KUMAR Date: 2026.06.23 17:59:47 +0530 2 order dated 04.12.2024 was challenged by the applicant before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (Crl.) No. 1118/2025 and he has withdrawn the said SLP vide order dated 27.01.2025, thereafter, the applicant moved another bail application before this Court which was again dismissed on 10.10.2025 in MCRC No. 8066/2025, while dismissing the second bail application of the applicant on 10.10.2025, the learned trial Court was directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same as early as possible, thereafter, this third bail application has been filed. 2. The applicant who is in jail since 12.12.2023 in connection with crime No. 163/2023 registered at P.S. Balrampur, District – Balrampur at Ramanujganj for the offence under Section 302 and 201 of IPC, is claiming regular bail. 3. The case of the prosecution is that on 19.11.2023, the deceased Puja Dewangan was found in injured condition at Balrampur highway near village Aurajhariya. When the persons gathered there and called ambulance and the deceased was taken to the hospital by pickup vehicle, she was declared brought dead. On her postmortem, the doctor has opined cause of death is excessive bleeding, hemorrhagic shock due to massive bleeding with damage of internal organs which is homicidal in nature. The police registered the offence and after investigation, charge-sheet has been filed. During the investigation, it comes to the charge-sheet that after committing murder of the deceased by crushing her by his Tata Nexon vehicle, he took the vehicle to his native place, got it repaired and came back to his place of posting. The witnesses have seen him on the spot and his Tata Nexon 3 vehicle but he left the deceased in injured condition and went away from the spot. After investigation, charge-sheet has been filed. During the trial, 12 witnesses have been examined till 13.04.2026. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance upon the order dated 04.05.2026 passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Sahil Manoj Machare V/s The State of Maharashtra in SLP No. 7502/2026. He would further submit that while considering the second bail application of the applicant, this Court has directed the trial Court to expedite the trial of the case, considering the detention period of the applicant that he is in jail since 12.12.2023. Out of total 25 witnesses, till date 16 witnesses have been examined and the other witnesses are yet to be examined. It will take its own time which may cause the delay in conclusion of the trial. The witnesses are not turning up and looking to delay in conclusion of the trial, the applicant may be enlarged on bail. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant and would submit that two bail applications of the applicant has been rejected by this Court and the applicant has also withdrawn his bail application before the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 27.01.2025. Out of total 25 witnesses, 16 witnesses have already been examined and trial is its advance stage. The applicant has not filed the order sheets of the learned trial Court to demonstrate the reasons for delay in conclusion of the trial, and therefore, the applicant is not entitled for bail. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the bail application. 4 7. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, considering the nature of allegation against him, further considering that two bail applications have already been rejected by this Court as well as the applicant has also withdrawn his bail application before the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 27.01.2025, total 16 witnesses have already been examined before the learned trial Court out of 25 witnesses and the trial is at its advance stage, further that the applicant has not filed any order sheets of the learned trial Court demonstrating the reasons for delay in conclusion of the trial, I am not inclined to admit this third bail application of the applicant. 8. Accordingly, the third bail application of the present applicant Ajeet Kumar Pathak is dismissed at the motion stage itself. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) JUDGE Sumit