1 CGHC010261482026 2026:CGHC:32142 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 6444 of 2026 1 - Suresh Kumar S/o Doman Aged About 53 Years R/o Kawarabandh, Police Station Salekasa (Wrongly Mentioned As Salesasa) District- Gondiya, Maharashtra. ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Khairagarh, District- Khairagarh- Chhuikhadan - Gandai, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Love Kumar Ramteke, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Ghanshyam Kashyap. Dy.GA (Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Order on Board 27/07/2026 This is the sixth bail application filed on behalf of the applicant who is in judicial custody since 13.05.2024 in connection with Crime No. 220/2024, registered at Police Station Khairagarh, District Khairagarh–Chhuikhadan–Gandai (C.G.), for the offences punishable 2 under Sections 302, 120-B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The first bail application was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to revive the prayer after the examination of two material prosecution witnesses, namely, Pappu @ Heeralal and Pukhraj, vide order dated 27.11.2024 passed in MCRC No. 5367 of 2024. The second bail application came to be dismissed on 14.01.2025 in MCRC No. 9100 of 2024 on the ground that the aforesaid witnesses had not yet been examined in terms of the liberty granted while rejecting the first bail application. The third bail application was dismissed on merits vide order dated 16.09.2025 passed in MCRC No. 7274 of 2025, wherein the learned Trial Court was also directed to expedite the trial. Thereafter, the fourth bail application was dismissed vide order dated 18.11.2025 passed in MCRC No. 9282 of 2025, both on merits and on the ground that seven prosecution witnesses had already been examined. Henceforth, the fifth bail application was also dismissed by this Court vide order dated 20.04.2026 in M.Cr.C. No. 3572 of 2026 on merits thus, the present sixth bail application. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 11.05.2024, the police received information regarding the presence of a dead body lying near a culvert on Dongargarh Road, Kumhi. The deceased was identified through the Aadhaar Card recovered from the pocket of his trousers. The post-mortem examination revealed that the death was homicidal in nature. During the course of investigation, it surfaced that the deceased had taken breakfast with certain persons at Bajrang Hotel, Itwari Bazar, and thereafter they left the premises in a Scorpio vehicle. Upon 3 examination of the CCTV footage of the hotel, one Hemant Dekwar was identified. During interrogation, he allegedly disclosed that, with the intention of fraudulently claiming the insurance proceeds of the deceased, he, along with the present applicant, Suresh Machhiske, and co-accused Premchand Tilhare, strangulated the deceased, Uttam Janghel, in the forest area of Gatapar and placed the body near the culvert to create an impression of a road accident. It is further alleged that the body was subsequently run over by the said Scorpio vehicle. Memorandum statements of the co-accused, including that of the present applicant, were recorded, pursuant to which recoveries were effected. The investigating agency also obtained the mobile call detail records from the Cyber Cell and seized the relevant insurance policy documents. Upon completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet has been filed against the present applicant and the other co-accused persons. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been in custody since 13.05.2024. It is contended that subsequent to the rejection of the earlier bail application on 20.04.2026, only one prosecution witness has been examined on 02.05.2026, and despite the lapse of considerable time, the trial has not yet concluded. It is further submitted that, out of the total 31 prosecution witnesses, only 19 witnesses have been examined till date. In view of the prolonged period of incarceration undergone by the applicant and the slow pace of the trial, it is urged that the applicant deserves to be enlarged on regular bail. 4 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submits that the applicant's earlier bail applications have already been dismissed on merits. It is further contended that the trial has reached an advanced stage, with 19 out of the 31 prosecution witnesses having already been examined, while the remaining witnesses are being examined regularly. It is, therefore, submitted that no case for grant of bail is made out. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary as well as the material annexed with the bail application. 7. Upon due consideration of the rival submissions and on perusal of the material available on record, this Court finds that the applicant's earlier five bail applications have been dismissed on merits, the latest being M.Cr.C. No. 3572 of 2026, decided on 20.04.2026. It is also evident that, subsequent to the rejection of the said application, only one additional prosecution witness has been examined and, as on date, 19 out of the 31 prosecution witnesses stand examined. The trial has thus progressed substantially and is presently at an advanced stage. In the absence of any substantial change in circumstances warranting reconsideration of the matter, this Court is not inclined to take a view different from the one already taken. Accordingly, the present bail application deserves to be, and is hereby, dismissed. Considering the period of incarceration undergone by the applicant, the learned Trial Court is directed to make all endeavour to expedite the trial. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge SUGUNA DUBEY Digitally signed by SUGUNA DUBEY Date: 2026.07.29 11:00:34 +0530