2026:CGHC:19632 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 3841 of 2026 Khuleshwar @ Phuleshwar Rathiya S/o Shri Yuvraj Singh Aged About 21 Years R/o Village- Gadaynbahari, P.S. Chhal, Distt.- Raigarh (C.G.) ...Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The District Magistrate, P.S.- Chhal, Distt.- Raigarh (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Rajendra Patel, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Soumya Rai, Dy. G.A. For Objector : Mr. Ritesh Giri, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 28.04.2026 1. The applicant has preferred this Second Bail Application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No.163/2025 registered at Police Station - Chhal, District - Raigarh (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 109(1) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita. 2. The earlier bail application of the applicant being MCRC No. 9526 of VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2026.04.28 16:29:51 +0530 2025 was rejected by this Court vide order dated 24.11.2025, on merits. 3. As per prosecution, on 11.09.2025 a report was lodged by Sumit Rathore at Police Station – Chhal to the effect that he along with Sunil Shrivas Team Leader were going to Navapara on a motorcycle at about 4:00 pm and after reaching 100 meters from the liquor shop Sunil parked his motorcycle on the roadside. At that very moment, a man on a motorcycle approached them from the village of Gadayinbahari and started having dispute and began abusing Sunil, then hit Sunil on the head with the shovel due to which he fell the ground. Thereafter, complainant informed Sunil’s brother via mobile and on the basis of said incident FIR has been lodged against the applicant. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that there has been a material change in circumstances as the parties have amicably settled their dispute, and the injured victim, Sunil Shrivas, has submitted a no- objection along with an affidavit before the learned trial Court, a certified copy of which is annexed herewith. The applicant has been falsely implicated and has not committed any offence as alleged, and the prosecution has failed to collect any cogent material evidence to establish his guilt, as the entire case is based on weak evidence. As per the MLC report, only one injury was found, which is neither fatal nor grievous in nature, indicating absence of any intention to kill; moreover, no blood was detected on the alleged weapon (shovel) as per the query report. The applicant is a 21-year-old boy with no criminal antecedents and has been in custody since 13.09.2025, having already undergone more than seven months of pre-trial detention, while the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude. In view of the compromise between the parties and the nature of the injury, the offence under Section 109(1) of the BNS is not made out. The applicant is the sole breadwinner of his family, and due to his incarceration, his family is facing severe financial hardship. He is a permanent resident of the address mentioned in the cause title, and there is no likelihood of his absconding or tampering with the prosecution witnesses. The applicant is ready to furnish bail bond and surety to the satisfaction of this Hon’ble Court; hence, he deserves to be enlarged on bail. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for the objector opposed the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has already been filed in the present case. It is further submitted that the injuries sustained by the injured are grievous in nature; as per the CT scan report of the brain, there is a fracture in the left temporal bone with adjacent soft tissue swelling and a scalp hematoma. Therefore, it is contended that the bail application of the applicant is liable to be rejected and he is not entitled to the grant of bail. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the offence, the material available on record, and the fact that the earlier bail application of the applicant, being MCRC No. 9526 of 2025, was rejected on merits by this Court vide order dated 24.11.2025, this Court finds no substantial change in circumstances to take a different view. It is further observed that the injuries sustained by the injured are grievous in nature, and as per the CT scan report, there is a fracture in the left temporal bone along with adjacent soft tissue swelling and a scalp hematoma, which reflects the seriousness of the assault. In view of the aforesaid, and considering that no new ground has been raised, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the applicant. Accordingly, the second bail application filed by the applicant is hereby rejected. 8. Accordingly, the second bail application of the applicant namely, Khuleshwar @ Phuleshwar Rathiya, involved in Crime No.163/2025 registered at Police Station- Chhal , District - Raigarh (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 109(1) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, is rejected. 9. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 10. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice vaibhav