1 CGHC010340342026 2026:CGHC:41759 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 8238 of 2026 1 - Aala Rajak S/o Shri Dhanna Rajak Aged About 19 Years R/o Dr. Pendalwar Nursing Home Gali, Santoshi Mandir Ke Pas Torwa, Thana Torwa, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Thana Torwa, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant : Shri Krishna Kumar Khatri, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Monika Thakur, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 25.09.2026 Heard. 1) This is the second bail application of the applicant. The first bail application of the applicant was dismissed on merits on 17.6.2026 in M.Cr.C. No.5233 of 2026. The applicant has preferred this Second Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant, who has been NIRMALA RAO 2 arrested in connection with Crime No.411 of 2022 registered at Police Station Torwa, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh for the offence punishable under Sections 307, 294, 506 and 34 of BNS. 2) The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the applicant was granted bail by the learned trial Court vide order dated 01.10.2022. The applicant appeared before the learned trial Court on 11.06.2024 and thereafter failed to appear. Consequently, an arrest warrant was issued against him on 11.06.2024. The applicant did not appear before the learned trial Court thereafter and was finally arrested on 16.05.2026. Since then, he has been in jail. 3) Learned counsel for the applicant would contend that the applicant had gone to another State in search of employment and, therefore, he failed to appear before the learned trial Court. He would submit that it is a well-settled principle of law that the risk to life is one of the considerations while considering a prayer for grant of bail. In the present case, the allegation against the applicant is that he attempted to commit murder and, after being granted bail, remained absconding for a considerable period and was arrested after nearly two years on 16.05.2026. Therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the applicant. 4) On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the applicant was granted bail by the learned trial Court vide order dated 01.10.2022 and was under an obligation to remain present before the trial Court on each and every date fixed for hearing. However, after 11.06.2024, the applicant remained absent from the proceedings without any sufficient cause, due to which the 3 learned trial Court was constrained to issue an arrest warrant against him. It is further submitted that, despite the issuance of the warrant, the applicant did not surrender before the Court and remained absconding for nearly two years, ultimately being arrested on 16.05.2026. Learned State counsel contends that the ground taken by the applicant that he had gone outside the State in search of employment is not sufficient to justify his prolonged absence from the Court proceedings. It is thus submitted that the conduct of the applicant clearly demonstrates disregard for the conditions of bail and the process of law. Therefore, the applicant does not deserve the indulgence of bail, and the present application is liable to be rejected. 5) I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6) Having considered the fact that the first bail application was rejected on merits, I do not find any good ground or change in circumstance to enlarge the applicant on bail. 7) Accordingly, this second bail application of the applicant is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi