1 CGHC010309022026 2026:CGHC:38451 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 7878 of 2026 1 - Virendra Kurre S/o Rammu Kurre Aged About 27 Years R/o Devpuri Satnam Chowk, Opposite Mahendra Showroom (Wrongly Mentioned As Hamendra In The Impugned Order), P.S Tikrapara, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Mana Camp, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title is taken from CIS) For Applicant : Mr. Roshan Singh Lamba, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Rohitashav Singh, Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order On Board 31/08/2026 1. This is the third bail application preferred by the applicant under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “the BNSS”) for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 326/2025, registered at Police Station Mana Camp, District Raipur (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 103 (1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “the BNS”). BHOLA NATH KHATAI Digitally signed by BHOLA NATH KHATAI Date: 2026.08.31 17:00:57 +0530 2 2. The first bail application preferred by the applicant was rejected on merits by this Court vide order dated 09.02.2026 passed in MCRC No. 897/2026. 3. The second bail application of the applicant was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to revive the same after some time, vide order dated 04.08.2026 passed in MCRC No.7056/2026. 4. As per the prosecution case, on 04.11.2025, the applicant assaulted Raj Bai Bandhe with hands and fists, as a result of which she sustained grievous injuries on her head. She was admitted for treatment at D.K.S. Hospital, Raipur, where she succumbed to her injuries on 05.11.2025. On the basis of the same, the offence was registered against the applicant and he was arrested on 01.12.2025. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that out of 19 prosecution witnesses, only four witnesses have been examined so far and they have not supported the prosecution case. He further submits that the applicant is in custody since 01.12.2025 and, considering the pace of the trial, its conclusion is likely to take considerable time. It is, therefore, submitted that the applicant may be enlarged on bail. 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State has opposed the bail application and submits that two eyewitnesses are yet to be examined. He further submits that there is no change in circumstances and, having regard to the nature and gravity of the offence, the present bail application also deserves to be rejected. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. Having considered the overall facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the nature and gravity of the offence, the material collected and available on record against the applicant, and further taking into consideration the fact that no substantial change in 3 circumstances has been brought on record subsequent to the rejection of the first bail application on merits, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail. 9. Accordingly, the third bail application preferred by the applicant stands rejected. 10. However, considering the fact that the applicant is in custody since 01.12.2025, the Trial Court is directed to make all endeavour to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 11. Let a certified copy of this order be sent to the Trial Court concerned for information and necessary compliance, if any. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) JUDGE Khatai