1 2025:CGHC:1869 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 282 of 2025 • Resham Seth S/o Sahdev Seth Aged About 32 Years, R/o Baloda, P.S. Saraipali, District Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Applicant versus • State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Saraipali, District Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Gurudev I. Sharan, Advocate For State : Mr. Ajit Singh, GA Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Order On Board 13/01/2025 1. This is the fourth application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant, who has been arrested in connection with Crime No.511/2022 registered PRIYANKA VERMA Digitally signed by PRIYANKA VERMA Date: 2025.01.13 17:28:11 +0530 2 at Police Station Saraipali, District Mahasamund (C.G) for the offence under Section 376 (2) (f), 376 (2) (L), 376, 323 & 506 of the IPC. 2. The first bail application of the applicant was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 01.08.2023 passed in MCRC No.3550/2023. The second bail application of the applicant was rejected on merits vide order dated 01.02.2024 passed in MCRC No.759/2024. The third bail application of the applicant was dismissed with a direction to the trial Court to conclude the trial expeditiously vide order dated 27.06.2024 passed in MCRC No.4547/2024. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. He submits that the applicant is in jail since 17.12.2022. He would further submit that though this Court had directed for the expeditious trial but 2 years have passed and not a single witness has been examined, therefore, on the ground of delay in trial, he may be enlarged on bail. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposes the aforesaid submissions. He submits that he would apprise the concerned Superintendent of Police to ensure the presence of the witnesses on the date of the hearing. He would further submit that the earlier bail application has been rejected on merits, therefore, this is not a fit case for grant of bail. 5. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and particularly considering the gravity of the offence which has been committed with a physically/mentally challenged victim by her own 3 relative and the fact that the earlier bail application was rejected on merits, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail. 6. Accordingly, the bail application is dismissed. However, it is expected that the concerned trial Court shall proceed in the matter in de die in diem manner. Counsel for the State is also directed to apprise the concerned Superintendent of Police to ensure presence of the witnesses on the given dates. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Priyanka