1 2025:CGHC:36938 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 5900 of 2025 1 - Ramesh Kumar S/o Lalan Das, Aged About 27 Years R/o Bihara, P.S. Bihara, District Saharsha ( Bihar ) 2 - Samim Nadaf @ Bijnesh S/o Jaleel Nadaf, Aged About 44 Years R/o Nishiharpur, P.S. Shankarpur, District Madhepura ( Bihar ) ... applicants(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Officer In Charge (Sho) P.S. Chaal, District Raigarh C.G. ---Non-applicants For applicants : Mr. Prahalad Panda, Advocate For-Non-applicants : Ms. Upasana Mehta, Dy. G. A. Hon’ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 29/07/2025 1. The applicants has preferred this Second Bail Application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. in connection with Crime No. 123/2024, registered at Police Station Chaal District Raigarh Chhattisgarh for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376(2)(n) of IPC and 4 & 6 of POCSO Act and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act. 2. Earlier bail application was withdrawn by the learned counsel for applicantss on 09.01.2025 in MCRC No. 8401/2024. Digitally signed by JYOTI JHA Date: 2025.07.30 11:26:25 +0530 2 3. The prosecution story in brief is that a report was lodged by the complainant alleging that Grandmother of prosecutrix filed a missing complaint of her granddaughter at Police Station Chall Raigarh on 25.06.2024 that on 11.05.2024 when she came to Ghaghoda court for meet with her son because her son came from District Jail Raigarh to Gharghoda Session Court and when she returned her home, she saw that her granddaughter was not present at her home thereafter she filed a complaint against unknown person and doubt raised that a unknown person took to her minor granddaughter. On the basis of the said complaint and FIR has been registered and the applicants has been arrested on 08.08.2024 for the aforesaid sections. 4. It was argued by the learned counsel for the applicants that the second bail application has been filed on behalf of applicants only on the ground of detention of applicants as the applicants are languishing in jail since 08.08.2024 and prosecutrix lived with the accued from last 2 month in home of Lochan @ Karan but she has not raised any objection against sexual intercourse and has not shouted or not complaint to anyone till three months. There are total 32 witnesses in this case but till date no any single witness has been examined, so looking to the detention period of applicants, therefore he prays for considering the case of the applicants 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 applicants has not given any plausible explanation, therefore, htier bail application is liable to be dismissed. 3 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 the fact of the case, I do not find any change of circumstances to reconsider this repeat application for grant of bail and to release the applicants on bail, therefore, at this stage, the aforesaid bail application of applicants 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