1 CGHC010256632026 2026:CGHC:40407 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 6082 of 2026 1 - Deepak Bairagi S/o Shri Vinod Bairagi Aged About 35 Years R/o Ward No. 12, Neechepara Dharamjaigarh, P.S. Dharamjaigarh District Raigarh C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through S.H.O. P.S. Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Applicant : Shri Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Shri Jitendra Shrivastava, G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 16.09.2026 Heard. 1) This is the second bail application of the applicant. The first bail application of the applicant was dismissed on merits on 15.12.2025 in M.Cr.C. No. 9895 of 2025. The applicant has preferred this Second Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No.237/2023, registered at Police Station Dharamjaigarh, District – Raigarh (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code. NIRMALA RAO 2 2) Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the informant, Dr. B.L. Bhagat, made a written hospital memo informing that the deceased, Kartik Ram Sarathi, was admitted to the hospital on 28.08.2023 at about 10:00 a.m. for treatment and died during the course of treatment. On the basis of the said information, merg was registered. During the course of investigation, statements of the family members of the deceased were recorded, wherein they stated that on 26.08.2023, at around 9:00 p.m., Deepak Bairagi (the present applicant) and Rohit Yadav, after consuming alcohol, came near the house. When Rohit Yadav started making noise, the deceased, Kartik Ram Sarathi, raised an objection, upon which Deepak Bairagi became agitated and strangulated Kartik Ram Sarathi and assaulted him with his hands and fists on his chest and stomach. Due to the assault, the deceased suffered grievous injuries and was taken to the hospital, where he died during the course of treatment. Thereafter, the offence/FIR was registered against the applicant, and he was arrested in connection with the aforementioned crime. 3) Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case and has not committed any offence as alleged against him. Out of a total of 15 witnesses, the prosecution has examined only 03 witnesses till date, and they have not fully supported the prosecution story. The prosecution agency could not collect any cogent and reliable evidence to prove the guilt of the applicant; therefore, no case is made out against him. There are no other criminal antecedents against the applicant. He further submits that the earlier bail application, i.e., M.Cr.C. No. 9895 of 2025, preferred by the 3 applicant, was dismissed on merits vide order dated 15.12.2025. He also submits that the applicant is in jail since 31.08.2023 and that the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail. 4) Per contra, learned State Counsel, opposing the bail application of the applicant, submits that it has come in the statements of the family members of the deceased, namely, Lakshmi Bai Sarathi, Pooja Sarathi, Narendra Sarathi, Anjali Sarathi and Salik Ram Sarathi, that on 26.08.2023, at around 9:00 p.m., the present applicant, Deepak Bairagi, and Rohit Yadav, after consuming alcohol, came near the house. Rohit Yadav started making noise, to which the deceased objected, upon which Deepak Bairagi became agitated and strangulated and assaulted the deceased with his hands and fists on his chest and stomach. Due to the assault, the deceased suffered grievous injuries and was taken to the hospital, where he died during the course of treatment. He further submits that an oral dying declaration was made by the deceased in the presence of one Basant Kumar, who has not yet been examined. He also submits that the wife of the deceased, namely, Lakshmi Bai Sarathi, who is a star witness, has not yet been examined. Further, looking to the nature of the offence, the applicant may not be released on bail. 5) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6) It is an admitted fact that the evidence adduced before the learned Trial Court cannot be appreciated at the stage of considering an application for grant of bail. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, 4 the nature and gravity of the offence alleged against the applicant, and the fact that the earlier bail application preferred by the applicant was rejected on merits vide order dated 15.12.2025, this Court is not inclined to extend the benefit of bail to the applicant at this stage. 7) Accordingly, the bail application of applicant is rejected. 8) Needless to say, the Trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed with and conclude the trial expeditiously. 9) Office is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi