1 2026:CGHC:16378 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 3203 of 2026 Aman Patel S/o Dujram Patel Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Arda, Thana- Banki Mongra, Dist- Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House O/cer, Police Station- Sarkanda, Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Brijesh Kumar Singh, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Shubham Bajpai, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 09.04.2026 1. The applicant has preferred this Second Bail application under Section 483 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No.892/2025, registered at Police Station- Sarkanda, District – Bilaspur, (C.G.) for the o>ence punishable under Sections 109, 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. The earlier ?rst bail application of the applicant being MCRC No. 8547 of 2025 was rejected by this Court vide order dated 29.10.2025, on merits. 3. The prosecution story in brief, is that on 27.06.2025, complainant KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 Vicky Gupta lodged a report at Police Station Sarkanda, stating that around 9:00 P.M.., while he was walking near his house in Bhukamp Atal Awas, Sarkanda, he heard loud screams coming from a nearby room in Block D. When he went there, he found blood spread all over the room, Urmila Shrivastava was lying injured in the kitchen, Sunita alias Sushma was locked inside the toilet and Rani Shrivastava alias Pramila was lying in front of the door covered in blood. Urmila informed that Aman Patel, the accused, had attacked her with a sharp iron weapon (chopper) with intent to kill and when Rani and Sunita tried to intervene, he also assaulted them, causing serious injuries. 4. During investigation, the accused Aman Patel was arrested, and based on his memorandum statement, a sharp iron weapon resembling a sword was seized from him. The dying declarations of the injured victims Amala, Urmila, and Sunita Shrivastava were recorded, in which Pramila and Sunita specifically stated that Aman Patel suddenly entered the room, took out a knife from his bag, and attacked them, which led to the registration of the alleged offence against the applicant. Hence, the bail application. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that the earlier bail application of the applicant, being MCRC No. 8547/2025, was rejected by this Court vide order dated 29.10.2025 on merits, however, the present second bail application is being ?led on the basis of subsequent change in 3 circumstances, inasmuch as the co-accused has been granted bail and the case has now progressed to the stage where it is pending for arguments on charge before the learned trial Court. It is further contended that the co-accused, namely Amit Kumar, who has been enlarged on bail by this Court, is not appearing before the trial Court, on account of which his evidence could not be recorded and even the charges have not yet been framed against the accused persons, resulting in delay in commencement of trial. He further submits that the applicant has been in judicial custody since 28.06.2025 and has undergone prolonged incarceration, while the charge-sheet has already been ?led before the competent Court and the trial is likely to take considerable time for its conclusion. It is further submitted that although the allegations are serious in nature, the role attributed to the applicant is yet to be established during trial and remains untested by cross-examination and the presumption of innocence continues to operate in favour of the applicant. It is also submitted that the investigation is complete, statements of material witnesses along with medical evidence are already part of the charge-sheet and therefore no further custodial interrogation of the applicant is required and there is no likelihood of tampering with evidence. The applicant undertakes not to inCuence or contact any prosecution witness. Therefore, it is prayed that the applicant be enlarged on bail. 6. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the present application is the second bail application filed by the applicant after rejection of his earlier 4 bail application, i.e., MCRC No. 8547/2025, which was dismissed on merits by this Court vide order dated 29.10.2025 and there is no substantial change in circumstances warranting reconsideration of the same. It is further submitted that the charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court. Learned State counsel contends that the applicant is the main accused, who attacked Urmila Shrivastava with a sharp-edged weapon with an intention to cause her death and also inflicted grievous injuries upon Rani Shrivastava @ Pramila and Sunita @ Sushma when they intervened in the incident. Therefore, considering the gravity and seriousness of the offence, as well as the specific and active role attributed to the applicant, it is submitted that the applicant is not entitled to be enlarged on bail. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 8. From perusal of the record, it prima facie appears that the applicant Aman Patel is the principal accused in a brutal assault case that occurred on 27.06.2025 at Bhukamp Atal Awas, Block- D, Sarkanda, District Bilaspur. On the said date and time, the complainant Vicky Gupta, upon hearing loud cries and screams emanating from a nearby residential premises, rushed to the spot and witnessed a gruesome scene with the victims, namely Urmila Shrivastava, Rani Shrivastava @ Pramila and Sunita @ Sushma, lying in a pool of blood having sustained grievous injuries. It is specifically alleged that the present applicant, armed with a sharp 5 iron weapon resembling a chopper, forcibly entered the premises and launched a violent and unprovoked assault upon Urmila Shrivastava with an intention to cause her death. When the other two victims attempted to intervene, they were also mercilessly assaulted by the applicant, resulting in serious injuries on vital parts of their bodies. During the course of investigation, the applicant was arrested and on the basis of his memorandum statement, the alleged weapon of o>ence was recovered at his instance. These very ?ndings were taken into consideration by this Court while rejecting the earlier bail application of the applicant, i.e., MCRC No. 8547/2025, vide order dated 29.10.2025. 9. In the present second bail application, though a new ground has been raised by the learned counsel for the applicant with regard to grant of bail to co-accused Amit Kumar and delay in trial, however, upon consideration, this Court ?nds that the statements of the injured witnesses, including their earlier dying declarations, now forming part of their statements under Section 180 of BNSS, clearly implicate the present applicant as the main assailant who inCicted grievous and life-threatening injuries upon the victims. The recovery of the weapon at his instance further forti?es the prosecution case. So far as the claim of parity is concerned, it is noteworthy that the co-accused Amit Kumar was granted bail by this Court on an entirely di>erent footing, as no overt act of assault was attributed to him, whereas the present applicant is alleged to be the principal perpetrator of the o>ence. Hence, the case of the applicant is clearly distinguishable and the bene?t of parity cannot be extended to him. 6 10. It is also observed that the co-accused Amit Kumar, who has been granted bail by this Court, is not appearing before the trial Court, on account of which the charges have not yet been framed against the accused, thereby causing delay in the commencement of trial. 11. In view of the same, the trial Court is directed to take appropriate steps to secure the presence of the co-accused, if there is no legal impediment, to proceed with framing of charges against the present applicant expeditiously. 12. Considering the nature and gravity of the o>ence, the speci?c and active role attributed to the applicant and the material available on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that no case for grant of bail is made out at this stage. Accordingly, the second bail application ?led by the applicant - Aman Patel, involved in Crime No. 892/2025, registered at Police Station Sarkanda, District Bilaspur (CG) for the offence punishable under Section 109, 3(5) of BNS and Section 25 & 27 of Arms Act, is rejected. 13. 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