1 CGHC010249172026 2026:CGHC:29936 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 6319 of 2026 Rajendra Gond S/o Baldev Gond Aged About 25 Years R/o Lingiyadih, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station- Sarkanda, District – Bilaspur (C.G.) ---- Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Goutam Khetrapal and Mr. Sheshav Shekhar Barik, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Anusha Naik, Dy. Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 15.07.2026 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. 542/2024 registered at Police Station Sarkanda, District – Bilaspur (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 307, 341 and 34 of the IPC. 2. The brief facts of the case are that one year ago the complainant appeared at Rajkishore Nagar, Sarkanda Police Station and he lodged a report that on 13.05.2024 he and the victim Vaibhav were travelling on a Bullet motorcycle near the Orphange Complex in Rajkishore Nagar, Bilaspur, the applicant along with other co-accused stopped the vehicle with the intention of killing Vaibhav and injured him on the RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 throat with a blade. On the basis of said complaint, the aforesaid offence has been registered against the applicant and co-accused. Hence, this application. 3. First bail application of the applicant has been rejected by this Court vide order dated 13.10.2025 passed in MCRC No. 7675/2025, on merits. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that so far as the status of trial is concerned, out of 6 prosecution witnesses out of which only 2 have been examined by the trial Court, and the first bail application of the applicant was rejected on the ground that there are 9 criminal antecedents of the applicant, but in the said cases the trial is still pending only because the witnesses in those cases are not appearing. The applicant is in jail since 03.04.2025, and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take quite long time. Therefore, he prays that the applicant be granted bail. 5. Learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application and submits that the there are a total of 9 criminal antecedents of the applicant, and the applicant along with the co-accused is said to have assaulted the injured with blade, and on the same ground the first bail application of the applicant has been rejected by this Court. Therefore, this bail application of the applicant is liable to be rejected. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. Taking into consideration the fact that so far as the status of trial is 3 concerned, out of 6 prosecution witnesses out of which only 2 have been examined by the trial Court, and the first bail application of the applicant has been rejected by this Court vide order dated 13.10.2025 passed in MCRC No. 7675/2025, on the ground that there are 9 criminal antecedents of the applicant, and though it is stated that in the said cases the trial is still pending only because the witnesses in those cases are not appearing, but no such direction can be issued by this Court for any other cases in which the applicant is wanted, and so far as the present case is concerned, the applicant along with the co- accused is said to have assaulted the injured with blade and on the same ground the first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court, hence, this Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant on regular bail. 8. Accordingly, the Second bail application of applicant – Rajendra Gond, involved in Crime No. 542/2024 registered at Police Station Sarkanda, District – Bilaspur (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 307, 341 and 34 of the IPC, is rejected at this stage. 9. Needless to say that the learned trial Court is at liberty to proceed with the trial and conclude the same, expeditiously. 10. The Office is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar