1 2026:CGHC:6029 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 432 of 2026 Dalbeer Singh S/o Sukhsen Singh Aged About 30 Years R/o Village- Matta, Police Station- Janakpur, District- Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur (C.G.) ... Applicant Versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Station House Officer, Police Station Janakpur, District- Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant : Mr. Ramsajiwan For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, G.A. HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR VERMA Order on Board 03/02/2026 1. The victim along with her father has appeared before this Court today through Video Conferencing from the concerned DLSA and she has raised her objection regarding grant of bail to the applicant. 2. The applicant has preferred this second bail application under Section 483 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita Act, 2023 for grant of regular bail as he is arrested in connection with Crime No. 138/2025, registered at Police Station – Janakpur, District- Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur (C.G.) for offence punishable under Section 137 (2), 351, 64 (2) (n) of BNSS and Section 4 of POCSO Act. 2 3. First bail application of the applicant was dismissed on merits vide order dated 14.11.2025 passed in MCRC No. 8251 of 2025. 4. Case of prosecution, in brief, is that present applicant forcefully took the minor prosecutrix/victim to the forest and, thereafter, committed forceful sexual intercourse with her. Based upon report, FIR was registered and applicant has been arrested in the aforementioned crime/offence. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in this case, he has not committed any offence as alleged against him. The material/evidence collected by the prosecution are also not prima facie sufficient to hold the applicant guilty for the alleged offence/crime. MLC and FSL report has not supported the case of prosecution. There is delay in lodging of FIR, after the incident, prosecutrix stayed in her maternal uncle for about 04 days, but she not disclosed the incident to anyone. Prosecution has not placed any cogent documents to show that the prosecutrix was minor on the alleged date of incident. Applicant is in jail since 23.09.2025, conclusion of trial may take some time, hence, applicant may be released on bail. 6. Per contra, learned State Counsel opposing the bail application of the applicant and submits that applicant has committed the alleged offence/crime with minor victim (aged about 16 years & 04 months). Hence, looking to the nature of offence, applicant may not be released on bail. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 8. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties, material/evidence available in the case diary, particularly the nature of offence i.e. forceful rape and age of the victim, I am not inclined to allow this bail application. 9. Accordingly, bail application is hereby rejected. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Saurabh