1 CGHC010293812026 2026:CGHC:34517 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 7194 of 2026 1 - Deep Rajak S/o Surendra Rajak Aged About 20 Years R/o Village Bharewapara, P. S. Pandariya, District Kabirdham (C.G.) (Correctly Mentioned As Per Charge- Sheet). ... Applicant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station Pandariya, Dist. - Kabirdham (C.G.). ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Ritesh Verma, Adv. For Respondent/State : Mr. Rohitashva Singh, Dy.G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order On Board 06/08/2026 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 in Crime No. 102/2025 registered at Police Station Pandariya, District Kabirdham (CG) for the offences under Sections 296, 115(2), 351(3), 3(5), 103(1) of BNS. 2. The first bail application preferred by the applicant was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 14.08.2025 passed in MCRC No. 6431/2025. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 28/05/2025; when the complainant Laxminarayan, his father Chintaram Yadav, SOURABH PATEL Digitally signed by SOURABH PATEL Date: 2026.08.06 16:52:32 +0530 2 nephew Birendra alias Dulwara (deceased) and Surendra Yadav were returning on a motorcycle after visiting the Gaurakapa temple and the fair. At around 07:30 pm, when they reached near Bhadrali turn, the co- accused Falit Yadav and Mukesh Yadav, residents of Bharewapara, coming on a motorcycle, started cutting the motorcycle of the complainant from the front. Then Surendra Yadav objected, on which the accused/applicant and other co-accused abused and threatened to kill and beat them with sticks. In this incident, Laxminarayan Yadav and Chintaram Yadav got injured, while Birendra alias Dulwara died due to serious injury. On the information of this incident given by Deepak Yadav, the police registered the first information report under Crime No. 102/2025. When Janikram informed about the death of Birendra alias Dularwa, a Dehati Merg information was registered. The body was examined, and later, the crime of murder was added. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet has been filed. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. He next submits that the FIR, lodged on 28.05.2025, does not specifically disclose the involvement of the present applicant, as his name is not clearly mentioned therein. He further submits that, although the injured witness stated in his examination-in-chief that the applicant had assaulted him with a stick, the witness failed to identify the applicant during his cross-examination. It is also submitted that there are a total of six accused persons in 3 the present case, and the only allegation against the applicant is that he assaulted the injured with a stick. The applicant is in jail since 14.06.2025, and there is no immediate possibility of disposal of case, therefore, the applicant may be enlarged on bail. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application and submits that, in the present case, the name of the applicant has also appeared in the police statements of the injured Laxminarayan Yadav, Chintaram Yadav, spot witness Deepak Yadav, and Surendra Yadav, as well as in the statement recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS, 2023, regarding his involvement in the incident. On the basis of the memorandum statement of the applicant, the stick used in the incident has been seized from him. He further submits that the bail applications of similarly placed co-accused persons, namely, Dil Kumar @ Dillu, Prince Yadav, and Omprakash Chandrakar, have been rejected by this Court vide orders dated 25.09.2025 passed in MCRC No. 7261/2025 and 05.08.2025 passed in MCRC No. 5633/2025, and the case of the present applicant is also on the same footing. There is sufficient evidence available against the applicant. Therefore, at this stage, he may not be enlarged on bail. 6. Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the fact that the involvement of the applicant in the incident is evident from the statements of the eyewitnesses and 4 further from the memorandum statement of the applicant, pursuant to which the stick used in the incident has been seized, which prima facie strengthens the case of the prosecution. Further, considering the fact that, out of a total of 30 witnesses, only 04 have been examined till date and some important witnesses are still to be examined, this Court is not inclined to release the applicant on bail at this stage. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected. 7. However, looking to the custody period of the applicant, the trial Court is directed to expedite the trial as early as possible. 8. 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 $ourabh