1 CGHC010276782026 2026:CGHC:30732 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 6479 of 2026 Bhuneshwar @ Bhuvaneshwar Sahu S/o Dhruv Sahu Aged About 25 Years R/o Village- Baigakapa, P.S.- Lalpur, District- Mungeli (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer Lalpur, District- Mungeli (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Dr. Arpit Lal, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Rohitasava Singh, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board 20.07.2026 1. The accused/applicant has moved this Second bail application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 for releasing him on regular bail during trial in connection with Crime No. 126/2025 registered at Police Station – Lalpur, District – Mungeli (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 103 (1) of BNS. 2. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected on merits by this Court on 03.02.2026 in MCRC No 723 of 2026. 3. The prosecution's case is that based upon a Hospital Memo presented by a ward boy Anjoriram Nirmalkar, regarding the death of deceased Rajesh Kumar Sahu due to electric shock, a case was registered as Merg no. 23/2025, and the Digitally signed by AMIT PATEL 2 case was taken up for investigation. During the investigation, it was found that the death of deceased Rajesh Kumar Sahu was caused by electrocution by his nephew Bhuneshwar @ Bhuvaneshwar (Applicant) near the toilet due to an old grudge, knowing that the deceased would die due to electric shock, on which a crime was registered by the police station Lalpur under Crime No. 126/2025 against the applicant/accused under section 103(1) of the BNS and he arrested for the aforesaid offence. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that at the time when the first bail application was dismissed by this Court, only 2 out of the 19 prosecution witnesses had been examined. Thereafter, the trial has substantially progressed and as on date, 8 out of the 19 prosecution witnesses have been examined before the learned Trial Court. He further submits that despite the direction issued by this Court to the learned Trial Court to conclude the trial within five months, the trial has not yet concluded. It is also submitted that there is no direct evidence against the applicant and that he has been falsely implicated on account of a family dispute in the joint family. The applicant has no criminal antecedents and has been in jail since 30.08.2025 and the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude, therefore, considering the subsequent change in circumstances and the progress of the trial, the present applicant may be released on bail. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application and submits that the deceased was the uncle of the applicant. He further submits that first bail application of the application of the applicant was rejected on merits by this Court on 03.02.2026 in MCRC No 723 of 2026 and that out of the 19 prosecution witnesses, only 8 have been examined till date 3 and several important witnesses are yet to be examined, therefore, at this stage, he may not be enlarged on bail. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the offence and the fact that the applicant has been in jail since 30.08.2025; further considering that subsequent to the rejection of the first bail application, the trial has not concluded despite the direction issued by this Court for its expeditious disposal and that only 8 out of the 19 prosecution witnesses have been examined till date; and also taking into account that there is no direct evidence against the applicant and that the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude, therefore, I find it appropriate to release the applicant on bail. 8. Accordingly, the application is allowed and the applicant is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the said Court as and when directed in that behalf. 9. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge AMIT PATEL