1 2025:CGHC:19737 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 2844 of 2025 Ansar Ansari S/o Anul Ansari Aged About 21 Years R/o Gobardaha, Post Peska, P.S. Meral, District Garhwa (Jharkhand) ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House OfÏcer, Police Station Banki Mongra District Korba (C.G.) ---- Non-Applicant(s) For Applicants : Mr. S.R.J. Jaiswal, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Bharat Gulbani, Panel Lawyer. For Objector : Ms. Nand Kumari Kashyap, Advocate (from legal aid) Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 30/04/2025 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. 163/2023 registered at Police Station- Banki Mongra, District- Korba (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 376 of the IPC and Section 03 and 04 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. 2. The earlier first bail application of the applicant has already been rejected by this Court being MCRC No. 3747/2024, vide order dated 19.07.2024, on merits. Hence, this bail application. RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 3. Case of the prosecution, in brief is that the complainant has made a written complaint before the concerned Police Station stating therein that on the date of incident when the victim was going by Truck driven by driver to her work at Korba from Sutarra, at that time he committed sexual intercourse with her into the seat of said Truck. On the basis of report lodged by the victim, the police registered the aforesaid offence against the applicant. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court on merits and new ground which has been raised that the applicant is in jail since 24.02.2024 and out of 34 prosecution witnesses, 07 prosecution witnesses have been recorded. He further submits that the applicant is bonafide driver of the truck but he has not committed any sexual intercourse with the victim at seat of vehicle truck and prosecution has falsely been implicated the applicant based upon the false and fabricated allegation and further there is no any physical relationship between the victim and driver (applicant) in the truck vehicle. The witnesses have been examined by the prosecution agency before the learned trial Court, they have not supported the case of the prosecution thereafter, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant. 5. Learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the State/non-applicant as well as learned counsel for the objector opposes the bail application and submits that as the trial has already started and the statement of minor victim’s girl recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. wherein she stated that the manner in which she was exploited by the applicant for sexual purpose, the applicant is not entitled for grant of 3 bail further the earlier bail application of the applicant has already been rejected by this Court. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Considering the fact and circumstances of the case that the first bail application of the applicant has already been rejected by this Court on merits and the second bail application is filed on the grounds that the applicant has been incarcerated since 24.02.2024, further out of 34 prosecution witnesses, 7 witnesses, including the victim, have been examined by the trial Court and further considering the statement of the victim girl recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and she being a minor, looking to the seriousness of the case, I am not inclined to grant bail to the applicant. 8. Accordingly, the second bail application of the applicant namely, Ansar Ansari, involved in Crime No. 163/2023 registered at Police Station- Banki Mongra, District- Korba (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 376 of the IPC and Section 03 and 04 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, is rejected. 9. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 10. OfÏce is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information and compliance forthwith. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan