1 CGHC010289582026 2026:CGHC:38810 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 8112 of 2026 Bande Kumar Loniya S/o Shri Dhaniram Loniya Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Ghutku Police Station Koni Distt- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through S H O Police Station Koni District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Dheerendra Pandey, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Saumya Rai, Deputy Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 02.09.2026 1. This is the second bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 400/2025 registered at Police Station – Koni, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 105 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. The earlier bail application of the applicant being MCRC No. 10534 of 2025 was rejected by this Court vide order dated 13.01.2026 on merits. RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 05.02.2025, the deceased, Dev Prasad, fell ill and was admitted to CIMS for treatment, however, during the course of treatment, he expired on the same day. Upon receiving information regarding his death, a merg was registered and an inquiry was conducted. During the course of the merg inquiry, it was allegedly found that prior to his death, the deceased had consumed homemade liquor which he had purchased from Panch Bai @ Pancho Lahre. During investigation, the said Panch Bai, in her memorandum statement, allegedly disclosed that the liquor consumed by the deceased had been supplied to her by the present applicant. On the basis of the material collected during the investigation, the applicant was arrested in connection with the aforesaid offence and has been charged under Sections 105 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Hence, the present bail application. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that, the first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Hon’ble Court on merit. He further submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case and that he has neither committed nor participated in any act constituting the alleged offence. It is further submitted that the material and evidence collected during investigation are not prima facie sufficient to establish the applicant’s involvement in the alleged offence. He submits that the applicant has been implicated and arrested solely on the basis of the memorandum statement of co-accused Panch Bai @ Pancho Lahre, which, in itself, is not substantive or 3 admissible evidence against the applicant. It is further submitted that the applicant has consistently approached the learned Trial Court seeking expeditious disposal of the case, however, his application for urgent hearing was rejected by the learned Trial Court. He further submits that the applicant has been in custody since 28.08.2025 and, considering the period of incarceration and the likelihood of the trial taking considerable time, his continued detention is unwarranted. Hence, he prays for grant of second bail to the applicant. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the second bail application of the present applicant and submits that the present application is the second bail application preferred by the applicant and that his earlier bail application, being MCRC No. 10534 of 2025, was rejected on merits by this Court vide order dated 13.01.2026. It is further submitted that the co-accused Panch Bai @ Pancho Lahre, through whom the prosecution case alleges that the liquor was supplied to the deceased, has also not been granted the benefit of bail and her bail application, being MCRC No. 10248 of 2025, was rejected by this Court vide order dated 12.12.2025. He further submits that the applicant has a total of eight criminal antecedents, out of which three cases have already been disposed of, while the remaining cases are still pending. He submits that the applicant’s involvement has emerged during the course of investigation from the memorandum statement of co-accused Panch Bai @ Pancho Lahre, wherein she allegedly disclosed that the liquor consumed by the deceased had been supplied to her by 4 the present applicant. It is further submitted that the allegations against the applicant are serious in nature, as the prosecution case relates to the alleged supply of illicit/home-made liquor which was consumed by the deceased prior to his death. He further points out that the applicant has not filed the order-sheet of the trial proceedings to demonstrate the present status and progress of the trial, and therefore, the plea regarding delay in conclusion of the trial is not supported by the record. In the absence of any substantial change in circumstances after rejection of the earlier bail application, and considering the nature of the allegations, the material collected during investigation, the criminal antecedents of the applicant and the fact that bail of the co-accused has also been rejected, he prays for rejection of the present bail application. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. From perusal of the records, it transpires that the present application is the second bail application preferred by the applicant and that his earlier bail application, being MCRC No. 10534 of 2025, was rejected on merits by this Court vide order dated 13.01.2026. It further transpires that no substantial change in circumstances or any new ground has been brought on record warranting reconsideration of the prayer for bail. The prosecution case alleges that the deceased Dev Prasad had consumed homemade liquor purchased from co-accused Panch Bai @ Pancho Lahre and that, in her memorandum statement, she 5 disclosed that the said liquor had been supplied to her by the present applicant. It is also relevant to note that the bail application of the said co-accused Panch Bai @ Pancho Lahre, being MCRC No. 10248 of 2025, was rejected by this Court vide order dated 12.12.2025. Further, the applicant has eight criminal antecedents, out of which three cases have already been disposed of, while the remaining cases are still pending, which is also a relevant circumstance while considering the prayer for bail. Though learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is in jail since 28.08.2025 and that the trial is likely to take considerable time, but the applicant has not filed the relevant order-sheets of the Trial Court to demonstrate the present status and progress of the trial. Thus, the plea regarding delay in conclusion of the trial is not supported by any material placed on record. Considering the nature and gravity of the allegations, the material collected during investigation, the applicant’s criminal antecedents, rejection of the earlier bail application on merits, rejection of bail to the co-accused Panch Bai @ Pancho Lahre and the absence of any new ground or substantial change in circumstances, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the applicant. 8. Accordingly, the second bail application of the applicant – Bande Kumar Loniya, involved in Crime No. 400/2025 registered at Police Station – Koni, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 105 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, is rejected. 6 9. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 10. 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 Rahul Dewangan