Criminal antecedents cannot be the sole ground for refusing bail, especially when subsequent investigation reports or supplementary evidence undermine the prosecution's case and demonstrate procedural irregularities regarding the accused's involvement or presence at the scene of the crime.

NAFR

1. Heard.

2. This is the 3rd bail application of the applicant who has been arrested on 24.04.2024 in connection with Crime No.319 of 2024 registered at Police Station Tikrapara, District-Raipur for the offence under Sections 294, 506, 323, 34 and 302 of the IPC, and 25 and 27 of the Arms Act.

3. The 1st bail application filed by the applicant was rejected by this Court in MCRC-2047 of 2025 vide order dated 02.04.2025, and the 2nd bail application was dismissed vide order dated 24.09.2025 passed in MCRC-6472 of 2025.

4. Case of the prosecution in brief is that on 22.04.2024 at about 7.30 pm, when the deceased Aryan Tomar came out from his house and roaming on the way, he was assaulted by knife by the co-accused Suraj and other accused persons by hands and fists. By the injuries caused to the deceased, he died on the spot. Merg intimation was lodged by father of the deceased and during investigation, memorandum statements of the accused and co-accused persons have been recorded. Based on the memorandum statements of the co-accused persons, present applicant has also been arrested, and his memorandum statement was also recorded. The knife, weapon of offence has been seized from the co-accused Suraj. Statement of the witnesses under Section 161 CrPC have been recorded and thereafter, charge-sheet has been filed.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that there is no allegation against the present applicant that he also assaulted the deceased by any weapon, or by hands and fists. There is no recovery of any weapon from the present applicant, and except the memorandum statement, there is no evidence against the applicant in the charge-sheet. The witnesses have clearly stated that the present applicant Ritik Keshwani was not present on the spot, and he has not committed any offence. He would further submit that based on the complain made by the complainants, the Police enquired into the matter, and submitted its enquiry report before the Senior Superintendent of Police, Raipur on 06.11.2024 that the Investigating Officer has committed irregularities in the investigation and the involvement of the present applicant in the offence in question is not found from the statement of the witnesses. He would draw attention of this Court towards the report dated 06.11.2024 submitted before the Senior Superintendent of Police, Raipur, which is annexed at page-91 of the bail application, and the report dated 04.02.2025 annexed at page-39 of the bail application. He would further submit that the injured Shubham Chandrakar, witness Sidhant Nishad, Sameer Sahu, have clearly stated in their statement that the present applicant was not present on the spot. It is also submitted that the Police submitted the supplementary charge-sheet on 22.01.2026 against the co-accused Jagesh Giri Goswami, in which it is also found by the Police that the present applicant was not present on the spot, and there is no evidence of involvement of present applicant in the incident is found. He would further submit that the applicant is in jail since 24.04.2024 and till date, the trial has not been concluded. Further, though 14 witnesses have been examined during trial but in view of filing of the supplementary charge-sheet against the co-accused Jayesh, the trial would restart from the beginning for cross-examination, against whom the supplementary charge-sheet has been filed, and there is every possibility for further delay in conclusion of the trial. He would further submit that when the statement of the witnesses and the charg