1 CGHC010355312026 2026:CGHC:39819 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 8475 of 2026 1 - Lakesh @ Lucky Dhruv S/o Kumbhkaran Dhruv Aged About 26 Years R/o Kodebod, Chowki, Birejhar, P. S. Kurud, District Dhamtari, C. G. ... Applicant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer, Police Chowki, Birejhar, P. S. Kurud, District Dhamtari, C. G. ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Kunwar Lal Sahu, Advocate For Non-applicant : Mr. Rishiraj Pithwa, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order On Board 11.09.2026 1) The applicant has preferred this third Bail Application under Section 483 the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail as he has been arrested in connection with No. 169/2025 registered at Police Chowki Birejhyar, Police Station Kurud, District Dhamtari for the offence under Sections 296(B), 351(2), 191(2), 191(3), 115(2) r/w Section 190, 109(1) r/w Section 190, 103(1) r/w Section 190, 331(8) r/w Section 190, 331(6) r/w Section 190 of BNS 2023 and 25-1, 1-B, B of Arms act (charge sheet filed under Sections 296(B), 115(2), 351(2), 103(1), 191(1), 191(3), 331(8), 109(1), 332(A) of BNS 2023 and 25 and 27 of Arms Act 1959) (FIR registered under Sections 296(B), 2 115(2), 351(2), 103(1), 191(1), 191(3), 331(8) of BNS, 2023) (318 (8) wrongly mentioned in the impugned order at one place). 2) Earlier, the applicant had preferred two applications. MCRC No. 10219 of 2025 was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 12.12.2025, whereas MCRC No. 4427 of 2026 was subsequently considered and rejected on merits. 3) As per the prosecution story, on 28.06.2025 at about 11:00 PM, the applicant, along with the co-accused persons, went to the complainant’s house, abused the family members and assaulted Ranjeet Navrenge, Jitendra Navrenge and Shekhar Navrenge with wooden sticks. It is further alleged that at about 1:00 AM, the accused persons again came to the house, trespassed into the room of Ranjeet Navrenge and assaulted him and Komal Navrenge with wooden sticks and a knife. During the incident, co-accused Satyam Nagarchi allegedly inflicted knife injuries on Komal Navrenge, resulting in his death. Based on the aforesaid allegations, the offences have been registered against the present applicant. Hence, this application. 4) Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that most of the prosecution witnesses have already been examined and have not supported the case of the prosecution. He would contend that the present is a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant. 5) Per contra, learned State counsel would oppose the bail application and submit that, out of 22 witnesses, only 16 witnesses have been examined. He would further submit that the allegation against the present applicant is that he participated in the murder of Komal Navrenge by using a knife, wooden stick, etc. He would contend that 3 some of the witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution and, therefore, the application deserves to be rejected. 6) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 7) Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses cannot be appreciated in detail while considering a bail application. It is also relevant to note that the applicant had earlier preferred two applications, one of which was rejected on merits and the other was dismissed as withdrawn. 8) Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, in the opinion of this Court, no case is made out for grant of bail to the applicant. Accordingly, the bail application filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 is rejected. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Rekha