1 2026:CGHC:15554 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 3032 of 2026 Aman Ratre S/o Shri Rameshwar Ratre Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Bhadaura, Police Station And Tehsil Masturi, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Masturi Police Station Masturi, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Arjit Tiwari, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Ritika Verma, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 06/04/2026 1. This is the Fourth bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 295/2024 registered at Police Station- Masturi, District - Bilaspur (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 452, 294, 506, 307, 34 of the IPC. 2. Earlier first bail, second bail and third bail applications of the applicant were rejected by this Court on merits. Hence this is fourth bail application. KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant Varsha Rani Rathore lodged an FIR before the Masturi Police Station on 24.07.2024, with the intent that her father and six others were imprisoned for murder. Since then, she lived in a rented house in Korba with her three children and mother. On the day of the incident, she was at home with her family when accused Aman Ratre, Ravishankar Suman, Babulal Suman, and Parvati Suman gathered near her house. Aman, intoxicated, entered her home with a sharp edged weapon i.e. axe and attacked her child, Om Rathore, inflicting severe head injuries. Varsha intervened, grabbing the axe, and her daughter Rajrani helped her escape with Om. They dialed 112 and reported the incident. Based on Varsha's report, applicant/accused Aman Ratre, Ravishankar Suman, Babulal Suman, and Parvati Suman were charged under IPC Sections 452, 294, 506, 307, and 34 and were arrested. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the earlier first, second and third bail applications of the applicant were rejected by this Court on merits and the new ground which has now been raised is that the present applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated due to previous enmity and local disputes and the prosecution story as reflected in the FIR is highly exaggerated and suffers from material inconsistencies, being primarily based on the statement of an interested witness. It is further submitted that the learned trial Court failed to appreciate the factual matrix of the case in its proper perspective. It is also contended that similarly situated co-accused persons have already been enlarged on bail by this 3 Court, thereby entitling the present applicant to the benefit of parity. He further submits that even if the allegations are taken at their face value, the incident appears to have occurred suddenly without any premeditation and there is no material indicating any prior conspiracy or intention to cause fatal injuries. It is also urged that the applicant is in custody since 25.06.2024 and has undergone a substantial period of incarceration and although the trial had almost reached the stage of conclusion, due to subsequent arrest of an absconding co-accused, the trial has been delayed on account of re-examination of witnesses. It is further submitted that the prosecution witnesses examined so far have not supported the case of the prosecution and have failed to attribute any specific overt act to the present applicant. He also submits that the applicant is a young person aged about 26 years and the sole bread earner of his family and his prolonged detention is causing severe financial hardship and adversely affecting the education of his children. It is lastly submitted that there is inordinate delay in conclusion of the trial and therefore, the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail on this ground as well. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Non-applicant/State opposes the prayer for grant of bail and submits that the first, second and third bail applications of the present applicant have already been rejected on merits and there is no substantial change in circumstances warranting reconsideration of the same. It is further submitted that the grounds now sought to be raised are neither new nor sufficient to grant bail. She further contends that the 4 allegations against the applicant are grave and serious in nature, as the applicant is specifically alleged to have caused injuries by means of an axe to a six-month-old child, who sustained grievous injuries on her head. Considering the nature of accusation, manner of commission of offence and severity of injuries, it is submitted that the applicant does not deserve to be enlarged on bail. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the case diary as well as bail application, this Court finds that the earlier first, second and third bail applications of the present applicant have already been rejected on merits and no substantial change in circumstances has been demonstrated so as to take a different view in the present fourth bail application. The grounds now raised by the learned counsel for the applicant, including alleged false implication on account of previous enmity, non-support of prosecution witnesses and delay in trial, do not inspire confidence at this stage. The fact that some of the prosecution witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution cannot be a ground to enlarge the applicant on bail, as the same gives rise to a reasonable apprehension of tampering with the evidence. This Court further takes note of the fact that though the trial had reached an advanced stage, however, due to the subsequent arrest of an absconding co-accused, the learned trial Court was required to undertake re-examination/re-appreciation of prosecution witnesses, which has resulted in delay in conclusion of 5 the trial, but the said circumstance by itself is not sufficient to grant bail in the present case. 8. Having regard to the nature and gravity of the allegations, particularly that the applicant is specifically alleged to have entered the house of the complainant and assaulted a six-month-old child by means of an axe, causing grievous injuries on her head, this Court is of the considered opinion that the offence is serious in nature and the manner of commission reflects a high degree of brutality. In such circumstances, this Court is not inclined to extend the benefit of bail to the present applicant. 9. Accordingly, the fourth bail application filed by the applicant deserves to be and is hereby rejected. 10. However, considering that the applicant is in custody since 25.06.2024 and the delay in trial has occurred on account of re- examination of witnesses after arrest of the absconding co-accused, the learned trial Court is directed to separate the trial of the present applicant from the co-accused, if not already separated and make all possible endeavour to conclude the trial expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order. 11. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal