1 2026:CGHC:19878 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 3944 of 2026 Mukesh Kumar S/o Lt. Chhotelal Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Sarseni Post- Sakarra Police Station Hirri District- Bilaspur (C.G.) (As Per Correct Details) ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer Police Station Hirri District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ---- Non-Applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Sachin Nidhi, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Palak Dwivedi, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 29/04/2026 1. This is the second bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 173/2025 registered at Police Station Hirri, District- Bilaspur (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 64(1), 331(4) of BNS. 2. The earlier bail application of the applicant being MCRC No. 6492 of 2025 was rejected by this Court vide order dated 18.08.2025 on merits. Hence, the bail application. KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant lodged a written complaint stating that on 01.07.2025 at about 2:30 PM, she was alone at her house. At that time, the applicant allegedly entered the house of the victim, committed forcible sexual intercourse with her and thereafter fled from the spot. Subsequently, the victim informed her parents about the incident. On the basis of the aforesaid prosecution story, an offence under Sections 64(1) and 331(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 registered against the applicant. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has not committed any offence and has been falsely implicated by the police without there being any cogent evidence against him. He further submits that the first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court on merits and the new ground which has been raised that the applicant is a young person aged about 22 years and is in custody since 02.07.2025, having already undergone more than 10 months of incarceration. It is also contended that there is a significant change in circumstances inasmuch as the statement of the victim has already been recorded before the learned trial Court in Sessions Case No. 194/2025 pending before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Bilaspur (C.G.), and paragraphs 17 and 18 of her statement indicate that she was a consenting party. It is further submitted that the false implication of the applicant is evident from paragraph 7 of the statement of the mother of the victim, who has admitted that the applicant, being the Up-Sarpanch of the village, 3 had taken action against the illegal possession of Government land by the victim and her family and had issued notices and oral directions to vacate the same, which reveals the motive behind the false implication. It is lastly submitted that out of 18 prosecution witnesses, only two witnesses have been examined so far, which clearly indicates that the trial will take considerable time to conclude, therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application and submits that the first bail application of the applicant has already been rejected on merits by this Court in MCRC No. 6492/2025 vide order dated 198.08.2025. It is contended that there is no substantial change in circumstances warranting reconsideration of the present second bail application and the grounds now raised are not tenable. It is further submitted that the allegations against the applicant are serious in nature, supported by material available on record and therefore, the applicant does not deserve to be enlarged on bail at this stage. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of the allegations levelled against the applicant, as well as the material available on record, it is noted that the first bail application of the applicant was rejected on merits by this Court in MCRC No. 6492/2025 vide order dated 19.08.2025. The present second bail application filed by the applicant on the ground that the statement of the victim has been recorded before the learned trial 4 Court and certain portions thereof are being relied upon to contend consent, along with the submission regarding alleged motive arising out of a land dispute. However, such grounds, in the considered opinion of this Court, do not constitute a substantial change in circumstances so as to warrant reconsideration of the bail application. Further, the fact that out of 18 prosecution witnesses only 2 witnesses have been examined so far, by itself, cannot be said to be a sufficient ground to interfere at this stage. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the applicant. 8. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant – Mukesh Kumar filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, involved in Crime No. 173/2025 registered at Police Station Hirri, District- Bilaspur (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 64(1), 331(4) of BNS, is rejected. 9. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal