1 CGHC010363662026 2026:CGHC:41882 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 8924 of 2026  Bhuneshwar Giri Goswami S/o Hemgiri Goswami Aged About 26 Years R/o Maniyari Chowk Salfa Police Station Sargaon, District Mungeli, C. G. ... Applicant versus  State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station City Kotwali Mungeli Sargaon, District Mungeli, C. G. ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Ayush Lall, Advocate For State : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 26.09 .2026 1. This is the second 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. 170/2025 registered at Police Station Sargaon, District Mungeli (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 109, 296, 115(2), 351(2), & 3(5) of BNS. 2. Earlier, first bail application i.e. MCRC No. 2813 of 2026 was rejected on merits vide order dated 25.03.2026. 3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 22.10.2025, the complainant Pawan Verma along with his friends Laxman @ Lucky Sahu and Roshan Yadav while returning from Talagaon at about 9:30 p.m., when they were at SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2026.09.26 17:19:38 +0530 2 Sulfa Mahamaya Temple, Tejeshwar Giri Goswami started abusing them without any reason. When the complainant objected, Tejeshwar Giri Goswami called his brothers, Bhuvneshwar Giri and Pawan Giri, who threatened the complainant and his friends and assaulted them with fists & knife, resultantly Pawan Verma and Laxman @ Lucky Sahu sustained injuries on their stomachs, while Roshan Yadav sustained injury to his chest. On such complaint, aforesaid offence was registered against the applicant and other co-accused persons. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that some of the witnesses have already been examined and they have not supported the case of prosecution. It is also argued that the applicant is in jail since 23.10.2025 and trial may take some time for its conclusion, therefore, this second bail application may be allowed. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would oppose the bail application. Mr. Shrivastava would submit that first bail application was rejected on merits. He would submit that the present applicant is a person, who inflicted knife injuries on vital parts of injured Pawan Verma Laxman @ Lucky Sahu and Roshan Yadav and knife was seized from his possession. He would submit that this application deserves to be rejected. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. It is a well-settled principle of law that, while entertaining a bail application, the High Court cannot conduct a mini-trial or undertake a detailed examination of the evidence. The reliability and credibility of the witnesses are matters to be assessed by the learned Trial Court during the course of 3 trial and cannot be assessed at this stage. Further, there is serious allegations against the present applicant as he is the person, who inflicted knife injuries to three injured persons on chest, stomach and other vital parts. In MCRC No. 2813 of 2026 the merits of case was considered in para 6, and subsequently, application was rejected. 8. Having considered the above-stated facts and further this is second bail application, first application was rejected on merits, present applicant is a person from whose possession knife was seized and there is allegation that he inflicted knife injuries on stomach, chest and other vital parts of injured person, I am not inclined to grant bail to present applicant. 9. Accordingly, the instant application for the grant of bail is hereby rejected. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE $iddhant