1 2026:CGHC:4737 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 955 of 2026 Suresh Tirkey S/o Heera Tirkey Aged About 36 Years R/o Kotraroad, Rajeev Nagar, Gali No. 1, Raigarh Tehsil And District- Raigarh (C.G.) ...Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, City Kotwali District- Raigarh (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Ankita Shukla, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 28.01.2026 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. 131/2025 registered at Police Station – City Kotwali District – Raigarh (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 296, 351(2), 115(2), 118(2) of the BNS. 2. The earlier bail application of the applicant being MCRC No. 4910 of 2025 was rejected by this Court vide order dated 26.06.2025, on VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2026.01.30 10:43:59 +0530 2 merits. 3. The prosecution story, in brief, is that, the prosecutrix lodged first information report (F.I.R.) on 25/03/2025 alleging that she is residing as tenant at the house of one Geeta Sahu and she runs beauty parlor, on 24/03/2025 around 17:00 hours the prosecutrix knowing the applicant went with the present applicant somewhere where they both returned back to the house of the prosecutrix at 02:30 AM, the applicant was heavily drunken, and under the impression of alcohol he started abusing the prosecutrix and in between this the applicant hit the prosecutrix with a lock and bit the prosecutrix on her body, therefore aforesaid offences were registered against the applican. 4. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that this is the second bail application of the present applicant and that none of the aforesaid offences are made out against him, as the prosecutrix is a major and a consenting party in the present case; it is further submitted that all the alleged offences are bailable except Section 118(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 326 IPC), which has been wrongly invoked by the prosecution inasmuch as no grievous injury has been caused to the victim, and the medical report clearly records, in response to a specific query regarding fracture, that no fracture was found on the body of the victim; the applicant has not committed any offence as alleged and has been falsely implicated; the applicant has been in judicial custody since 26.03.2025 and has thus suffered incarceration for about ten months; it is further submitted that there was a long-standing love affair between the applicant and the complainant, which is duly corroborated by the statement of the 3 complainant’s friend recorded under Section 180 of BNSS, 2023 (Section 161 Cr.P.C.), stating that the applicant and the complainant were in a relationship for the past 2–3 years, which itself indicates that due to a subsequent dispute between the parties, the applicant has been falsely and maliciously implicated; the applicant is only about 36 years of age and continued detention for an offence he has not committed would irreparably prejudice his future; out of ten prosecution witnesses, only two have been examined so far, and the trial is not likely to conclude in the near future, making continued incarceration nothing but pre-trial punishment, as reflected from the order sheets annexed as Annexure A/5; the applicant is a permanent resident of the address mentioned in the cause title, there is no likelihood of his absconding, and he undertakes to furnish adequate surety and abide by all terms and conditions that may be imposed by this Hon’ble Court, and therefore prays for grant of bail. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application of the present applicant 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, the nature of the dispute, and the material available in the case diary, and further considering that the victim, who was familiar with the applicant, had gone with him and returned home at about 2:30 a.m., whereafter the applicant, being heavily intoxicated, is alleged to have abused the victim, assaulted her with a lock, and bitten her on various parts of the body, it is apparent 4 that no new ground has been raised in the present second bail application. In view of the seriousness and gravity of the allegations levelled against the applicant, this Court is of the considered opinion that the second bail application filed by the applicant deserves to be and is hereby rejected. 8. Accordingly, the Second bail application of the applicant – Suresh Tirkey, involved in Crime No. 131/2025 registered at Police Station – City Kotwali District – Raigarh (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 296, 351(2), 115(2), 118(2) of the BNS, is rejected. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice vaibhav