1 CGHC010328932026 2026:CGHC:38159 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 7942 of 2026 Ghanshyam Kenwat @ Bhuru Son of Satish Kumar Kenwat Aged About 25 Years Resident of Village Beharchuwan, Police Station And Tahsil Kartala, District Korba Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House O.cer, Police Station Kartala, District Korba (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Vinod Kumar Dewangan, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Ritika Verma, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 25.08.2026 1. This is the second bail application ;led under Section 483 of the BNSS for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 38/2026 registered at Police Station - Kartala, District - Korba (C.G.), for the o=ence punishable under Sections 296, 115(2), 351(3) and 109(1) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. The earlier bail application of the applicant being MCRC No. 4958 of 2026 was rejected by this Court vide order dated 10.07.2026 on merits. 3. The prosecution story, in brief, is that the complainant lodged a complaint before the concerned Police Station, alleging inter alia that on the date of the incident, during the Holi festival, a minor dispute arose between the ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2026.08.25 16:32:01 +0530 2 complainant and the Applicant at Village Beharchuwan Chowk. Thereafter, the Applicant allegedly assaulted the complainant with his hand and suddenly pushed him, as a result of which the injured person fell to the ground and sustained injuries, which were simple in nature, as per the medical report dated 07.03.2026. Based on the said complaint, the police registered an o=ence under Sections 296, 115(2), 351(3) and 109(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) against the unknown accused persons. Subsequently, on the basis of suspicion and the alleged memorandum statement, the applicant was implicated in the present case and arrested in connection with the aforesaid o=ence. 4. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the ;rst bail application ;led by the applicant was rejected by this Court on merits. He submits that the factual position is that the complainant, namely Chhabilal Rathiya, and his friends, namely Satpal Yadav and Nagendra Kumar Rathiya, are residents of Meengaon, Chowki Jobi, Police Station Kharsiya, District Korba, Chhattisgarh. On 05.03.2026, during the Holi festival, they came to Village Beharchuwan, where the applicant resides. On the date of the incident, they had consumed liquor at Village Beharchuwan and thereafter started creating a disturbance and making noise at a public place near Beharchuwan Chowki. When the applicant advised them to stop creating a nuisance, they unnecessarily quarrelled with him. During the said altercation, the applicant, in order to defend himself, gently pushed the complainant with his hand, due to which the complainant lost his balance and fell to the ground. As a result, the complainant sustained simple injuries, as reCected in the medical report dated 07.03.2026. He further submits that the prosecution story is inherently improbable and unnatural, inasmuch as the applicant was allegedly alone, whereas the complainant’s side consisted of three 3 persons. It is di.cult to believe that a single, unarmed person could have intentionally assaulted all three persons, as alleged by the prosecution. The alleged incident took place immediately after the Holi festival, and the complainant and his companions were under the inCuence of liquor. Therefore, a minor verbal altercation and mutual scuFe have been falsely exaggerated and given the colour of a criminal case. He further submits that no weapon was used in the alleged incident, nor has any weapon been recovered from the possession of the applicant. The allegations against the applicant are limited to pushing and assaulting the complainant with his hands. The injuries sustained by the complainant are simple in nature and are not of such a grave nature as to warrant the applicant’s continued incarceration. Even as per the prosecution case, the injured person remained hospitalized only for a limited period, from 06.03.2026 to 13.03.2026. He further submits that there are 10 prosecution witnesses in the present case, out of whom only 5 have been examined so far. The applicant has been in custody since 09.03.2026, and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time. Therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the applicant. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application of the present applicant. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. From a perusal of the pleadings, it appears that no new ground has been raised in this second bail application, except that, as of today, only 5 out of the 10 prosecution witnesses have been examined and have turned hostile. The same does not constitute a su.cient ground for granting bail. Accordingly, I do not ;nd any justi;cation for granting bail, and the present second bail application ;led by the applicant is rejected at this 4 stage. 8. Accordingly, the second bail application of the applicant – Ghanshyam Kenwat @ Bhuru, involved in Crime No. 38/2026 registered at Police Station - Kartala, District - Korba (C.G.), for the o=ence punishable under Sections 296, 115(2), 351(3) and 109(1) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, is rejected. 9. However, this Court hopes and trusts that the trial Court shall make an earnest endeavour to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible within a period of four months from the receipt of a certi;ed copy of this order in accordance with law, if there is no legal impediment. 10. O.ce is directed to send a certi;ed copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek