1 2025:CGHC:20824 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRC No. 3485 of 2025 Umesh Gendle S/o Rajesh Gendle Aged About 21 Years R/o Ward No. 4, Village Podi, Police Station Sirgitti, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer Police Station Sirgitti, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Sumit Singh Rathore, Advocate For Respondent/State :Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 06.05.2025 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. 587 of 2024, registered at Police Station- Sirgitti, district- Bilaspur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 127(2) and 64 of BNS and section 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act. The first bail application was rejected by this court vide order dated 29.01.2025(Annexure A/01). 2 2. Brief facts of this case is that as per the prosecution story, the present applicant took the minor victim in the room and thereafter, committed forceful sexual intercourse with her. Based upon report, FIR was registered and applicant has been arrested in the aforementioned crime. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that, the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the alleged crime, he has not committed any offence as alleged against him. He also contended that there are lot of material contradictions and substantial change in the facts and circumstances of the case, hence the present applicant be enlarged on bail in the interest of justice. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application submitted by the applicant. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the case and other materials available on record. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and further considering the nature of offence, and specially to the fact that there is no substantial change in the facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore, looking to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence available on record it is crystal clear that the applicant is involved in the 3 crime and there are clinching chain of evidences which proves the same. Therefore, this court is of the considered opinion that this case is not a fit case to allow the bail application of the applicant. 7. Accordingly, the instant miscellaneous criminal appeal stands dismissed. 8. 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 alfiza