1 2025:CGHC:15985 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 1577 of 2025 1 - Jogya Prasad Jaiswal S/o Trilochan Jaiswal Aged About 26 Years R/o Village - Chimarkel, Police Station - Basna, District - Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Applicant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through -Station House Officer, Police Station - Basna, District - Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Prahlad Panda, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Sushil Soni, Govt. Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi Order on Board 04/04/2025 1. This is second bail application filed by the applicant under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of bail as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 83/2021 registered at Police Station Basna, District – Mahasamund (C.G.) for commission of offence punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376(2)(n) & 376 (3) of the IPC and Section 6 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (henceforth, ‘POCSO Act’). His first bail application was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file afresh at an appropriate stage by this Court vide order dated 28.06.2022 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 3294 of 2022. 2 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the applicant abducted his own minor sister-in-law (lkyh ) and took her to Tamilnadu and he kept her there for about seven months and sexually exploited her repeatedly. Based on above facts, present crime has been registered against the applicant. The applicant has been arrested on 24.07.2021. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant / accused submits that charge-sheet was filed on 23.9.2021, thereafter, till date out of total 23 prosecution witnesses, only 15 witnesses have been examined and only 8 witnesses are yet to be examined. Since in the year 2023-2024, no prosecution witnesses have been examined, thus, there is huge delay in trial, hence, the applicant may be enlarged on bail. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the State submits that victim, her sister & mother have deposed against the applicant and even they have not been controverted material facts in the cross-examination. He further submits that only 8 witnesses are left to be examined, hence, the applicant is not entitled for bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary with utmost circumspection. 6. The applicant is languishing in jail since 24.07.2021. Though, till date out to total 23 prosecution witnesses, only 15 witnesses have been examined, but 8 witnesses are yet to be examined, but having considered the deposition of victim, her sister and mother, I do not feel inclined to entertain this bail application. Hence, the second bail application filed by the applicant is rejected. 7. Considering the fact that since about two years, no substantive progress has been made by the trial Court and the 8 witnesses are yet to be 3 examined, therefore, the trial Court is directed to conclude the trial expeditiously preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 8. It is made clear that if the trial of the case is not concluded within the stipulated period, then the applicant may revive his prayer for grant of bail to the applicant. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) JUDGE Amit/- AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2025.04.09 10:41:59 +0530