1 2026:CGHC:20090 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRC No. 3992 of 2026 Lekhram Nishad S/o Fakir Ram Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Badgaon, Police Station Dondilohara, District Balod Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Dondilohara, District Balod Chhattisgarh ---- Respondent (Cause title is taken from the CIS) ___________________________________________________________ For Applicant : Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate For State-Respondent : Mr. Vivek Sharma, PL ___________________________________________________________ Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Order on Board 30/04/2026 1. This is the second bail application filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023. The first bail application was rejected on merits by this Court vide order dated 21.01.2026. 2. The applicant has preferred this second bail application for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime 2 No. 96/2025, registered at Police Station Doundilohara, District- Balod (CG) for the offence punishable under Sections 103(1), 238, 3(5) and 61(2) of BNS, 2023. 3. The prosecution story in brief, is that present applicant alongwith co-accused Geeta Bai Nirmalkar have committed murder of deceased Manohar Nirmalkar by electrocution. The matter was reported before the concerned police station and the matter was taken up for investigation and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed before the concerned court against the accused. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the applicant is an innocent and has been falsely implicated in the said case. He further contended that out of 21 witnesses, 07 witnesses have been examined and they are not supported the case of prosecution. He further contended that the applicant is in jail since 18.07.2025 and the trial will take considerable time for its conclusion, therefore, the applicant may be released on bail. 5. Learned State Counsel opposes the submission made by learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the other prosecution witnesses are remain to be examined and at this stage, no substantial change in the ground for grant of bail to the applicant. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case 3 diary. 7. Considering the facts of the case, submission made by learned counsel for the parties. From the bare perusal of the case diary, it is revealed that, sufficient grounds are being shown by the prosecution that the accused/applicant has involved in the aforesaid offence and further considering that there is no substantial change in the ground for grant of bail to the applicant. Looking to the nature and gravity of the offence, granting bail to the accused/applicant does not appear to be justified. 8. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant stands rejected. 9. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Vasant