1 CGHC010334322026 2026:CGHC:38628 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 8080 of 2026 1 - Rambhagwan Sahu S/o Manrakhan Lal Sahu Aged About 55 Years R/o Gram-Peeperchedi, P.S. Rajim, District- Gariyabandh, (C.G.) ... Applicant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer (S.H. O.) P.S. Rajim, District- Gariyabandh, (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Shri Shalvin Sharma, Advocate. For State/Non-applicant : Shri Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order On Board 01/09/2026 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 who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 120/2026 registered at Police Station – Rajim, District Gariyabandh (C.G.) for the offence under Sections 296, 115(2), 108 and 3(5) of B.N.S. 2. The first bail application of the applicant being MCRC No. 6812 of 2026 NIKITA JAIN Digitally signed by NIKITA JAIN Date: 2026.09.02 11:22:59 +0530 2 was rejected by this Court vide order dated 04.08.2026 on merits. 3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that deceased Kanti Sahu, who was married to co-accused Ram Bhagwan Sahu about eight years prior to the incident, was allegedly subjected to harassment by the accused in connection with her share in the parental property. It is further alleged that on 06.03.2026, Ram Bhagwan Sahu and Venugopal Sahu, while under the influence of liquor, abused and assaulted the mother and sister of the deceased. It is alleged that due to such harassment, the deceased consumed insecticide at about 09:00 p.m. and subsequently died during treatment at Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Memorial Hospital, Raipur, on 10.03.2026. On the basis of the statements of witnesses and other material collected during investigation, Crime No.120/2026 was registered at Police Station Rajim for offences punishable under Sections 108, 296, 115(2) read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated. It is argued that the deceased had parental property and was offered her share therein, but she herself refused to accept the same. Learned counsel further submits that this circumstance has a bearing on the prosecution story and constitutes a new ground for consideration of bail. It is further submitted that there are as many as 40 prosecution witnesses, none of whom has been examined so far, and the applicant has remained in custody for a considerable period. It is also submitted that there has been a delay of about one month and eighteen days in lodging the FIR, which creates doubt regarding the prosecution case. On these grounds, learned counsel prays that the applicant be released on regular bail. He 3 submits further that similarly placed co-accused person has been granted regular bail by this Court and, therefore, the applicant is entitled to the benefit of parity. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bail and submits that the earlier bail application of the applicant was rejected on merits after considering the material available against him. It is submitted that no substantial change in circumstances has been brought on record so as to warrant reconsideration of the prayer for bail. Learned State counsel further submits that the alleged fact regarding the parental property is not mentioned in the present bail application and has been introduced only in the synopsis. It is further submitted that the said aspect was already considered by this Court while deciding the earlier bail application. The prosecution, therefore, submits that the present application does not disclose any fresh or substantial ground for grant of bail. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Admittedly, the first bail application filed by the applicant was rejected on merits. In the present bail application, learned counsel for the applicant has sought to raise a new ground that the deceased had a share in her parental property and that she had been offered the said property, but had refused to accept the same. However, the said fact has not been specifically pleaded in the present bail application and has been mentioned only in the synopsis. Moreover, this aspect was also considered by this Court while rejecting the first bail application of the applicant. Therefore, the said ground cannot be treated as a new 4 circumstance warranting reconsideration of the prayer for bail. The fact that there are 40 prosecution witnesses, none of whom has been examined so far, also does not constitute a substantial change in circumstances. In view of the fact that the ground now sought to be raised was already considered by this Court while deciding the first bail application, and was not specifically pleaded in the present bail application, the same appears to be an afterthought. 8. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant – Rambhagwan Sahu, involved in Crime No.120/2026 registered at Police Station – Rajim, District Gariyabandh (C.G.) for the offence under Sections 296, 115(2), 108 and 3(5) of B.N.S.. is rejected. 9. Considering that the earlier bail application of the applicant was rejected on merits and there is no substantial change in circumstances, it is observed that the applicant shall not be entitled to renew his prayer for regular bail before completion of a period of six months from the date of this order, unless there is any substantial change in circumstances or a fresh ground warranting consideration of the bail application. 10. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 11. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Nikita