1 2025:CGHC:52683 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 8567 of 2025  Kunwar Ram S/o Late Sahdev Ram Aged About 23 Years (At Present) R/o Berakona,p.S. Aasta, District Jashpur, C.G. ... Applicant versus  State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Aasta, District Jashpur, C.G. ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Ms. Aditi Joshi, Advocate For Non-applicant : Mr. Pramod Shrivastava, Dy. G.A. Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 29-10-2025 1) This is the second bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, by the applicant before this Court for grant of regular bail in connection with Crime No. 03/2023 registered at Police Station–Aasta, District–Jashpur (C.G.), for the commission of an offence punishable under Sections 450,342/34, 376(3) of IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act. The police has already filed charge-sheet and POCSO Case No. 04/2023 is pending consideration before Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Jashpur. The first bail application i.e. Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2025.10.29 17:27:19 +0530 2 MCRC/2885/2023 was rejected as withdrawn vide order dated 20.6.2023. 2) As per the prosecution’s story, the victim had gone to the courtyard of her maternal uncle on 1.1.2023 at about 6 p.m. When she returned to her home, the present applicant forcibly entered the house and committed sexual assault and the door of the house was locked from outside by the wife of applicant. Subsequently, the victim approached the Police Station and FIR was registered. 3) Learned counsel for the applicant submits that victim has already been examined and she has been declared hostile and other witnesses have not supported the case of prosecution. She further submits that applicant is languishing in jail since 17.1.2023, therefore applicant may be enlarged on bail. 4) On the other hand, the learned State counsel submits that there are serious allegations against the applicant and the victim has supported the case of prosecution, therefore this bail application deserves to be rejected. 5) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6) From a perusal of the case diary and the submissions made herein above, it is quite vivid that the victim (PW/1) in para-2 has categorically stated that while she entered her house, the accused forcibly entered and the house was locked from the outside by the 3 wife of accused and thereafter, applicant committed sexual assault. She has further stated that the door of the house was opened on the next morning at 6:00 am by the wife of applicant and thereafter, meeting was convened. In para – 3, she has stated that FIR (Ex. P/1) was lodged and she was medically examined. This witness has been declared hostile, even though she supported the case of prosecution and in cross-examination, she stood firm. 7) Considering the above-discussed facts and the evidence of the victim, I do not find any good ground to enlarge the applicant on bail. Consequently, this bail application stands rejected. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE A j i n k y a