1 2026:CGHC:27251 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 5848 of 2026 Rupesh Kumar Patre S/o Late Narayan Patre Aged About 20 Years R/o Village Pendritalab P.S. Lalpur, District- Mungeli (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Lalpur, District- Mungeli (C.G.) ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Ankit Singh, Advocate For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Soumya Rai, Dy. Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 02.07.2026 1. The applicant has preferred this Second Bail Application under Section 483 of BNSS for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 07/2026, registered at Police Station- Lalpur, District : Mungeli (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 296, 109(1) and 3(5) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court in MCRC No. 3902/2026, vide order dated 29.04.2026, on merits. Hence this Second bail application. KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 15.01.2026, the complainant, namely Rakesh Kurre, lodged a written complaint at Police Station Lalpur, District Mungeli (C.G.). He stated that his brother, Suaraj Kurre, along with his friends, had gone to the premises of the High School at Village Barampur to participate in a program organized on the occasion of Guru Ghasidas Jayanti. During the course of the event, they went to a nearby pan shop, where a dispute was ongoing between the shopkeeper and the present applicant. When the complainant's brother attempted to intervene in the matter, the applicant, along with other co-accused persons (who are juveniles), allegedly assaulted him with a knife, causing serious injuries. Based on the said written complaint, an FIR was registered. The injured person was medically examined, and the applicant was subsequently arrested by the concerned prosecution authorities. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the first bail application preferred by the applicant was dismissed on merits by this Court vide order dated 29.04.2026 passed in MCRC No. 3902/2026. The present is the second bail application and the same has been filed on the basis of subsequent developments which have taken place after rejection of the first bail application. It is submitted that six prosecution witnesses have been examined during trial and none of them has supported the prosecution case. It is further submitted that the co-accused juvenile has already been granted bail by the competent Juvenile Justice Board. It is also submitted that the applicant is in judicial custody since 15.01.2026, the trial is 3 progressing slowly and is likely to take considerable time for its conclusion. He further submits that the father of the applicant expired on 24.06.2026, his mother is physically disabled and there is no other earning member or family member to look after and maintain her. It is further contended that the injuries sustained by the victim are not dangerous to life and the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case and the applicant is in jail since 15.01.2026 and has no criminal antecedent. On the aforesaid grounds, prayer has been made to enlarge the applicant on bail. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the first bail application of the applicant has already been rejected on merits after considering the nature and gravity of the allegations. It is submitted that there is no substantial change in the circumstances warranting reconsideration of the prayer for bail. Merely because some prosecution witnesses have not supported the prosecution case or the co-accused juvenile has been granted bail cannot, by itself, entitle the present applicant to the benefit of bail, particularly when the role attributed to him is distinct and specific. It is further submitted that the applicant is the main assailant who inflicted multiple grievous injuries upon the injured/victim by means of a knife, due to which the injured/victim remained admitted in Apollo Hospital for seven days. It is, therefore, prayed that the present second bail application deserves to be rejected. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case 4 diary as well as the previous order passed by this Court. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of the allegations and the fact that the first bail application of the applicant was dismissed on merits by this Court vide order dated 29.04.2026 passed in MCRC No. 3902 of 2026, and further taking into consideration the specific allegation against the applicant that he caused injuries to the injured/victim by using a knife, whereby the injured/victim sustained a total of six injuries, out of which three were incised wounds on the back of the chest, forearm and scapular region along with a stab wound on the left shoulder, the victim remained admitted in Apollo Hospital for seven days and the injuries were found to be grievous in nature, this Court is of the considered opinion that no substantial change in the circumstances has been brought on record so as to warrant reconsideration of the prayer for grant of bail. The subsequent grounds urged by the applicant that some prosecution witnesses have not supported the prosecution case, that the co-accused juvenile has been granted bail, the period of incarceration undergone by the applicant and the personal circumstances relating to the death of the applicant's father and the physical disability of his mother, are not sufficient to take a view different from the one already taken while rejecting the first bail application on merits. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail. 8. In view of above, the second bail application of the applicant namely 5 – Rupesh Kumar Patre, involved in Crime No. 07/2026, registered at Police Station- Lalpur, District : Mungeli (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 296, 109(1) and 3(5) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, is rejected. 9. However, this Court hopes and trust that the trial Court would make an earnest endeavour to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six months from the date of passing of order, if there is no legal impediment. 10. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal