1 CGHC010333822026 2026:CGHC:39252 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 8283 of 2026 Harsh Upadhyay S/o Manoj Upadhyay, Aged About 23 Years R/o Ward No. 40 Surya Chowk, Chingrajpara, Lingiyadih, P. S. Sarkanda, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station - Sarkanda, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Shubham Bajpayee, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Isha Jajodiya, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Mr. Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board 07.09.2026 1. This is the second bail application filed under Section 483 of the BNSS for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 978/2026 registered at Police Station- Sarkanda, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 119(1), 296, 351(3), 115(2) of the BNS. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 28.06.2026, when the MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2026.09.07 17:55:59 +0530 2 complainant Dev Kumar Sahu had gone outside his house to feed fodder, the applicant/accused Harsh Pandey alias Babu Pandey allegedly came there, abused him in obscene language, assaulted him and demanded money for consumption of alcohol. On the basis of the report lodged by the complainant on 29.06.2026, Crime No. 978/2026 was registered against the applicant for offences punishable under Sections 296, 351(3), 115(2) and 119(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and investigation was taken up. The applicant was arrested on 29.06.2026 and has been in custody since then. 3. The first bail application of the applicant was dismissed as withdrawn after arguing for some time vide order dated 17.07.2026 in MCRC No. 6381/2026. The applicant, who has been arrested on 29.06.2026 in connection with Crime No. 978/2026 registered at Police Station Sarkanda, District Bilaspur (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 119(1), 296, 351(3), and 115(2) of the BNS, is claiming regular bail. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that although the applicant's first bail application has been dismissed as withdrawn, however, considering his period of detention since 29.06.2026, the applicant is languishing in jail, the charge-sheet has already been filed, and no custodial interrogation is required in the case, therefore, he has filed the present second bail application. 3 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/State opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant and submits that there is an allegation of mar peet with the complainant by the applicant and loot of Rs. 2,500/- from him. Looking to the nature of the offence and the manner in which the offence has been committed by the applicant, coupled with the six criminal antecedents of the applicant, he is not entitled to be released on bail, as there is no change in circumstances. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the nature of the allegations and the manner in which the allegation has been committed, further, the first bail application has been dismissed as withdrawn after arguing for some time vide order dated 17.07.2026, and that the applicant is having six criminal antecedents, I am not inclined to admit this second bail application, as this Court finds that no substantial change in circumstances has been brought to the notice of this Court after rejection of the applicant's first bail application vide order dated 17.07.2026 so as to warrant reconsideration of his prayer for bail. Accordingly, this second bail application is hereby rejected at the motion stage itself. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Manpreet