1 2026:CGHC:20688 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 4078 of 2026 Pintu @ Lokesh Patel @ Lokeshwar Patel S/o Bhuneshwar Patel Aged About 25 Years R/o Aamapali, Upar Para, Sakti, Thana Sakti, District Sakti (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Urga, District Korba (C.G.) ... Respondent (Cause title is taken from CIS) For Applicant : Mr. Praveen Sharma and Mr. Digamber Chaubey, Advocates For Respondent/State : Mr. Ramnarayan Sahu, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order On Board 04/05/2026 1. The applicant has preferred this 2nd bail application under Section 483 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita Act 2023 for grant of regular bail as he is arrested in connection with crime No. 188/2025, registered at Police Station – Urga, District- Korba (C.G.) for offence punishable under Sections 103(1) of BNS, 2023. 2. The applicant’s first bail application was dismissed on merits vide order dated 11.02.2026 passed in MCRC No. 877/2026, as some material witnesses remained to be examined, and a direction was issued to the trial court to expedite the trial as early as possible. 3. As per the prosecution case, on 25.11.2024, the applicant has forcibly entered into the house of deceased Pooja Patel situated at village Siliyari Bhata Urga and committed murder by throttling her neck. Based SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Digitally signed by SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Date: 2026.05.04 16:32:12 +0530 2 on above, offence has been registered against the applicant and he was arrested on 11.05.2025. 4. Learned counsels for the applicant submit that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the crime in question. The change in circumstances in this second bail application is that, at the time of the first bail application, only 7 out of 31 prosecution witnesses had been examined, whereas now 11 witnesses have been examined. They further submit that the applicant has been implicated solely on the basis of mobile location. He is in jail since 11.05.2025 and the trial is likely to take some time to be finalized, therefore, it is prayed that the applicant may be enlarged on bail. 5. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the bail application and submits that there was a seizure of scarf (gamchha) from the applicant. Further, at the time of incident, his mobile location was traced at the place of incident, therefore, looking to the nature of offence, the applicant may not be released on bail. 6. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence on record against the applicant, and further considering that there is no change in circumstances from the first bail application to this second bail application, without commenting on the merits of the case, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail. 8. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected. 9. However, looking to the detention period of the applicant, the concerned Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and to ensure that the trial is concluded as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of 5 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge -Shubham