1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 5901 of 2026 Pradeep Paikra @ Pilu S/o Balak Sai Aged About 32 Years R/o Kansabel Mudatoli Tehsil And P.S. Kansabel District Jashpur C.G. (As Per The Charge Sheet) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Kansabel District Jashpur C.G. .. Respondent (Cause-title is taken from CIS) For Applicant : Mr. JK Saxena, Adv. For Respondent/State : Ms. Deepa Singh, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order On Board 03/07/2026 1. The applicant has preferred this 2nd bail application under Section 483 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita Act 2023 for grant of regular bail as he is arrested in connection with crime No.43/2025, registered at Police Station – Kansabel, District- Jashpur (C.G.) for offence punishable under Section 140(1), 140(3), 62(2), 351(2), 3(5), 103(1) and 238 of B.N.S 2. First bail of the applicant was dismissed vide order dated 07.07.2025 passed in MCRC no.4722/2025. 3. In this case there are total 4 accused persons. The prosecution's case, in short, is that the applicant and other co-accused are alleged to have conspired to murder Anirudh Das on 20.11.2024, at a place 3 km east of village Mudatoli, police station Kansabel, District Jashpur (C.G.), with a common intention. According to the allegations, they jointly assaulted Anirudh Das with fists, kicks, and stones, rendering him unconscious, and then abducted him with intention of killing. It is further alleged that they murdered Anirudh Das by cutting his throat with an axe and SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Digitally signed by SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Date: 2026.07.04 15:14:57 +0530 2 subsequently attempted to conceal the evidence by pouring kerosene oil on the body and setting it ablaze. The accused are also alleged to have disposed of the evidence by throwing the ashes of the burnt bones into a stream and intimidated the villagers, threatened to kill them if they revealed anything about the incident. Following a report lodged in this regard, the applicant was arrested on 03.04.2025. 4. Learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that the Applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the crime in question. The change in circumstances, as compared to the first bail application, is that at that time, the charge-sheet was not filed which has now been filed. He further submits that there is no direct allegation against the appellant and only on the basis of circumstantial evidence, he is involved in this case. The Applicant has been in custody since 03.04.2025. Out of 46 prosecution witnesses, only 1 has been examined till date, and the trial is likely to take considerable time for conclusion. In view of the above, it is prayed that the Applicant may be enlarged on bail. 5. Per contra, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the bail application and submits that there is active participation of the applicant in the present case and a seizure of mobile has also been made from him. Therefore, considering the gravity/nature of the offence, the Applicant does not deserve to be granted bail. 6. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence collected by the prosecution against the applicant, without commenting on merits of the case, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail. 8. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected. 9. However, looking to the detention period of the applicant, the concerned Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and to ensure that the trial is concluded as early as possible. Sd (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Shubham