1 2025:CGHC:36680 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRC No. 5367 of 2025 Sameer Asrafi @ Babu @ Sheikh Moinuddin S/o Sheikh Hussain Aged About 27 Years R/o Taj Chowk Moulipara Telibandha, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through P/S- Telibandha, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Vinay Nagdev, Advocate appears through video conferencing. For Respondent/State : Mr. Rishab Bisen, PL. Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 28.07.2025 1. The applicant has preferred this Second bail application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 for grant of bail as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No.643/2025, registered at PS - Telibandha, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, for the offence punishable under Section 65(2) of the BNS & Sections 4 & 6 of the POCSO Act. 2 2. Earlier bail application of the present applicant was dismissed on merits vide order dated 01.04.2025 by this court in MCRC No.2053 of 2025. 3. Brief facts of this case are that, complainant-mother of the prosecutrix lodged a report before the concerned Police Station stating that the applicant has forcefully committed sexual intercourse with her minor daughter, due to which, she became pregnant, which was aborted on 16.06.2024. Based on report, FIR was registered and applicant has been arrested in the aforesaid crime/offence. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in this case, he has not committed any offence as alleged against him. The alleged FIR lodged by the complainant is an afterthought and there is no proper explanation given by the prosecution for the delay in lodging of FIR. Prosecutrix in her evidence has not made any allegation against the present applicant, she also stated that her mother does not like the applicant because he belongs to different religion, therefore, a false case has been made against him. Medical report of the prosecutrix does not support the case of prosecution. Applicant is in jail since 08.10.2024, conclusion of trial may take time, hence, he may be enlarged on bail. 5. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application of the applicant. 6. Pursuant to order of this Court, victim/prosecutrix appeared before this Court on 25.07.2025 through virtual mode from the concerned DLSA and raised objection in granting bail to the applicant. 3 7. Considering facts of the case, nature of offence, submissions of counsel for the parties, particularly the fact that there is no substantial change in circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to release the applicant on bail. 8. Accordingly, this second bail application is hereby rejected. However, concerned trial Court is directed to expedite the trial as early as possible. 9. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge J.