1 2025:CGHC:28931 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 4696 of 2025 1 - Sanjay Kumar Sahu S/o Nandlal Sahu Aged About 31 Years R/o Village Ujiyapur, Chowki Nagpur, Thana Pondi, District Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Of Police Station City Kotwali Sarangarh, District Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.) ---Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Anil Kumar Gulati, Advocate For-Non-applicant : Mr. Rishabh Bisen, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 30/06/2025 1. The applicant has preferred this Second Bail Application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. in connection with Crime No. 448/2024, registered at Police City Kotwali, Sarangar, District Sarangarh-Bilaigarh Chhattisgarh for the offences punishable under Sections 469,409(B) IPC, 67(A), 67(B) of IT Act and Section 14 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act 2 2. Earlier bail application was rejected on merits on 21.03.2025 in MCRC No. 1718/2025. 3. The prosecution story in brief is that a report was lodged by the complainant alleging that the applicant took the photographs of the wife and daughter of the complainant in a vulgar manner and retained the source of video clips (sexually explicit material) being displayed in the electronic form ie. in face book and whatsapp. On the basis of the said complaint, the applicant has been arrested. 4. It was argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the second bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant only on the ground of detention of applicant as the applicant is languishing in jail since 04.12.2024 and out of 14 witnesses till date only 02 witnesses have been examined and apart of Section 506(B) of IPC, there is no minimum sentence prescribed under other offences and so far 509(B) ofIPC is concerned, minimum sentence is 06 months, which may extent to two years, so looking to the detention period of applicant, therefore he prays for considering the case of the applicant for grant of bail. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application and submits that there is ample evidence on record to connect the appellant with commission of the offence. For which, the applicant has not given any plausible explanation, therefore, his bail application is liable to be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary produced by the learned counsel for the State. 7. Considering the nature and gravity of the offence and further considering 3 the fact that earlier bail application was rejected on merits, I do not find any change of circumstances to reconsider this repeat application for grant of bail and to release the applicant on bail, therefore, at this stage, the aforesaid bail application of applicant is rejected. 8. However, this Court hope and trust that the trial Court shall make an earnest endeavour to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible, if there is no legal impediment. 9. Office is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Jyoti