1 CGHC010327282026 2026:CGHC:38714 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 8071 of 2026 1 - Kanha Yadav S/o Shiv Shankar Yadav, Aged About 20 Years R/o- Atal Aawaas, Ashok Nagar, Police Station Sarkanda, District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Station House Officer, Police Station - Sarkanda, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Rishabh Sharma, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Rohitashava Singh, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order On Board 01/08/2026 1. This is the second bail application filed by the applicant under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking grant of regular bail in connection with Crime No.47/2025, registered at Police Station Sarkanda, District Bilaspur (C.G.), for the offences punishable under Sections 103 and 109 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. The first bail application filed by the applicant in MCRC No.4653/2025 was rejected on merits vide order dated 07.07.2025. ARPAN SRIVASTAVA Digitally signed by ARPAN SRIVASTAVA Date: 2026.09.08 10:33:11 +0530 2 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 09.01.2025, upon being informed about a quarrel between Kanha Yadav and Jahnvi Manikpuri, the complainant's brother Omprakash Dhruw, along with Vikas Yadav and Pawan Yadav, intervened to pacify the dispute. It is alleged that the applicant, enraged thereby, assaulted all three persons with a knife, causing injuries to them. The injured persons were taken to C.I.M.S., Bilaspur, and thereafter the FIR was lodged at Police Station Sarkanda. During investigation, the applicant was arrested and, pursuant to his memorandum statement, the alleged weapon of offence was seized. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been filed for the offences punishable under Sections 103 and 109 of the B.N.S., 2023. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated and is innocent. It is submitted that the injuries were sustained by the applicant as well as the victims during a scuffle initiated by the victims themselves. It is further submitted that the alleged knife was not recovered from the exclusive possession of the applicant and that deceased Vikas Yadav was discharged from the hospital shortly after the incident and subsequently died on 23.03.2025. Learned counsel further submits that the applicant is in custody since 10.01.2025, is aged about 20 years and, out of 32 prosecution witnesses, 08 witnesses have already been examined. It is argued that there is no likelihood of the applicant absconding or tampering with the 3 prosecution evidence. The applicant is a permanent resident of the locality and is ready to abide by any condition that may be imposed by this Court. On these grounds, learned counsel prays for grant of bail. 5. Learned counsel for the State, per contra, opposes the bail application and submits that the allegations against the applicant are serious in nature. It is submitted that there are three eyewitnesses to the incident whose statements support the prosecution case. It is further submitted that the knife alleged to have been used in the commission of the offence has been recovered at the instance of the applicant, which prima facie connects him with the crime. It is also submitted that merely because some prosecution witnesses have already been examined, the applicant cannot claim bail as a matter of right, particularly when material witnesses are yet to be examined. Learned State counsel, therefore, prays for rejection of the bail application. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary as well as the material available on record. 7. Considering the gravity of the allegations, the material available on record, the fact that there are three witnesses to the incident supporting the prosecution case, and the fact that the knife alleged to have been used in the commission of the offence has been recovered at the instance of the applicant, and further 4 considering that there is no change in circumstances since the rejection of the applicant’s earlier bail application, this Court is of the considered view that no ground is made out for grant of bail to the applicant. Accordingly, the present second bail application is liable to be rejected. 8. Accordingly, the second bail application of the applicant-Kanha Yadav is rejected. However, considering the period of custody undergone by the applicant and treating the case as an exceptional case, the learned trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and make every endeavour to conclude the same within a period of five months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 9. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Arpan