MCRC/9610/2026 of Rakesh Gelare Vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH on 11 October 2026

1) This is the Second bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant arrested in connection with Crime No.322/2026 registered at Police Station Deendayal Nagar, District Raipur for the offences punishable under Sections 109, 296, 324(4) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya REKHA SINGH Digitally signed by REKHA SINGH DN: cn=REKHA SINGH, ou=HIGH COURT, o=HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, st=Chhattisgarh, c=IN Date: 2026.10.12 14:23:43 +0530

Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Earlier first bail application of the applicant bearing MCRC No.7307 of 2026 was rejected on merits vide order dated 10.08.2026.

2) The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 15.05.2026, due to an old land dispute, the applicant allegedly entered the house of the complainant, damaged household articles and assaulted the complainant and his family members with sticks and an axe, causing injuries. On the basis of the complaint, a case was registered against the applicant.Thereafter, the applicant was arrested in connection with said incident. Hence, this bail application.

3) Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that earlier first bail application of the applicant was rejected on merits in MCRC No. 7307 of 2026 vide order dated 10.08.2026. He would contend that the charge-sheet has already been filed, the applicant is in jail since 19.05.2026 and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion, therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the present applicant.

4) On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court. She would further submit that three criminal cases are pending against the applicant before the competent Court. She would contend that a lathi has been seized from the possession of the applicant and there are two injured persons, out of whom one sustained grievous injuries and the other sustained simple injuries. She would further contend that the first bail application of the applicant was rejected on merits and there is no substantial change in circumstances warranting reconsideration of the prayer for bail. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to be enlarged on bail.

5) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.

6) Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the nature and gravity of the allegations that the applicant, owing to an old land dispute, entered the house of the complainant and assaulted the complainant and his family members, the seizure of a lathi from the possession of the applicant, the fact that two persons sustained injuries, out of whom one sustained grievous injuries, and the fact that three criminal cases are pending against the applicant before the competent court, and further considering that the applicant's first bail application was rejected on merits in MCRC No. 7307 of 2026 and there is no change in circumstances, I am not inclined to grant bail to the present applicant. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Rekha