MCRC/9593/2026 of ARUN KUMAR RAM Vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH on 8 October 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. 46/2026 registered at Police Station Tilda-Nevra, District Raipur (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 105, 125(a), 125(b) of BNS.

2. Earlier, first bail application i.e. MCRC No. 5852 of 2026 was rejected on merits vide order dated 02.07.2026.

3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 30.01.2026, at about 8:00 P.M., driver of a highway vehicle bearing registration No. CG10BJ5311 allegedly drove rashly and negligently and hit two motorcycles bearing registration

Nos. CG04NK8497 and CG04NL8814, resultantly, three persons, namely, Dhanaram Yadu, Lakshminath Yadu and Devendra Kumar Yadav, died on the spot, while Omprakash Nishad sustained grievous injuries. It is further alleged that the driver dragged the injured person for some distance, abandoned the vehicle near Simga Bypass Road and fled from the spot. On such complaint, the offence was registered against the driver of the said vehicle.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant would submit that the present applicant has falsely been implicated. He further submits that after rejection of first bail application, 5 witnesses have been examined out of 15 witnesses and there are contradictions and omissions in their evidence. He would further submit that the present applicant is in jail since 01.02.2026, charge sheet has also been filed and trial may take some time for its conclusion. Thus, he would pray for grant of bail to the applicant.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State would oppose the bail application. She would submit that applicant by driving vehicle rashly and negligently caused an accident in which three persons died on the spot, while Omprakash Nishad sustained grievous injuries. She would further submit that there is no change in circumstances, and thus, the application is liable to be rejected.

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

7. It is a well-settled principle of law that, while entertaining a bail application, the High Court cannot conduct a mini-trial or undertake a detailed examination of the evidence. The reliability and credibility of the witnesses are matters to be assessed by the learned Trial Court during course of trial and cannot be assessed at this stage. Though five prosecution witnesses have been examined out of fifteen, the reliability and credibility of their testimonies are matters to be assessed by the learned Trial Court during course of trial and cannot be examined in detail at this stage. Further, first bail application was rejected on merits vide order dated 02.07.2026 in MCRC No. 5852 of 2026 & there is no change in circumstance and further considering the allegations leveled against the present applicant, I am not inclined to allow this application.

8. Accordingly, the instant application for the grant of bail is rejected. Sd/-

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE $iddhant