1 CGHC010301232026 2026:CGHC:40811 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MC RC No. 7572 of 2026 Falit Kumar Yadav S/o Anujram Yadav Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Bharewapara, P.S. And Tehsil Pandariya, Distt. Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh through Station House Officer, P.S. Pandariya, Distt. Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For the applicant : Dr. Arpit Lall, Advocate For the State : Mr. Rohitashwa Singh, Deputy Govt. Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Order on Board 18.09.2025 1. This is first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant in Crime No.102/2025 registered at Police Station Pandariya, District Kabirdham (CG) for the offences under Sections 296, 115(2), 351(3), 103(1) , 109 (1), 191(2), 191 (3) and 190 of BNS, 2023. 2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 28.05.2025, the complainant Laxminarayan, his father Chintaram Yadav, nephew Birendra alias Dulrawa (deceased) and Surendra Yadav were returning on a motorcycle after visiting the Gaurakapa temple and the fair. On the way at around 7.30 pm, when they reached near Bhardali turn, present applicant 2 Falit Yadav and co-accused Mukesh Yadav, residents of Bharewapara, coming on a motorcycle, turned cutting the motorcycle of the complainant from the front. When Surendra Yadav objected to such rash driving, the applicant and other co-accused abused and threatened to kill and assaulted them with sticks. In this incident, Laxminarayan Yadav and Chintaram Yadav got injured, while Birendra alias Dulrawa died due to serious injuries. On the information given by Deepak Yadav about the incident, the Police registered the FIR vide Crime No.102/2025. When Janikram informed about the death of Birendra alias Dularwa , a Dehati Merg information was registered. The body was examined and later the offence of murder was added. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet has been filed. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the complicity of the present applicant is not made out from the court statements of eye- witnesses P.W.1 Deepak Yadav and P.W.4 Surendra Yadav as these two witnesses have not categorically supported the case of prosecution. He submits that the applicant is in jail since 30.05.2025 and till date out of 30 witnesses, only 4 have been examined and there is no immediate possibility of conclusion of the case, therefore, the applicants may be enlarged on bail. 4. Per contra, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application. He submits that there is a named FIR against the present applicant and P.W.3 Chinta Ram (injured) has supported the prosecution case, which shows the involvement of the present applicant along with other accused. He submits that a bamboo stick was seized from the present applicant. He further submits that earlier the bail application of similarly placed co-accused Omprakash Chandrakar as also other accused Dil Kumar @ Dillu and Prince Yadav have been rejected by this Court by orders dated 05.08.2025 and 25.09.2025 passed in MCRC No. 5633 of 2025 and MCRC No. 7261 of 3 2025 respectively. So far as another accused Deep Rajak, his first bail application was rejected as withdrawn and his second bail application stood rejected on merits, therefore, the bail of the present applicant also deserves to be rejected. 5. Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the overall facts and circumstances situation and available material on record and since it is a case of direct evidence as also looking to the fact that earlier the bail applications of co-accused have been rejected, I am not inclined to release the applicant on regular bail at this stage. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected. 6. It is pertinent to note that while rejecting the first bail application of co-accused Dil Kumar @ Dillu and Prince Yadav in MCRC No. 7261 of 2025, looking to their custody period, this Court directed the trial Court to expedite the trial as early as possible. However, still there is lack of progress in trial. 7. Therefore, looking to the long custody period of the present applicant the trial Court is directed to expedite the trial as early as possible preferably within a period of 5 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 8. Copy of this order be sent to the trial Court for necessary information. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Rao ALLENA ANNAJEE RAO Digitally signed by ALLENA ANNAJEE RAO Date: 2026.09.21 14:02:35 +0530 4