1 2026:CGHC:6039 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 1147 of 2026 Jalesh Ratre S/o Lildas Ratre Aged About 21 Years R/o Satnamipara, Village Padiyain, P.S. Pathariya, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Jarhagaon, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Satyendra Mahadewa, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Nupur Trivedi, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 03.02.2025 1. This is the Second bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 207/2024 registered at Police Station – Jarhagaon, District Mungeli (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 64(2)(K), 70 and 77 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 66(E) of the Information Technology Act. 2. The earlier bail application filed under Section 483 of the BNSS in MCRC ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2026.02.04 14:23:53 +0530 2 No. 7311 of 2025 for grant of regular bail to the applicant, which was rejected on merits vide order dated 14.10.2025. 3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the mother of the victim lodged a Dehati Nalishi report stating that her daughter is mentally unsound and usually resides at home. She often goes alone to the village pond for bathing. On 19.12.2024 at about 4:00 p.m., the victim went to the village pond for bathing but did not return even after a long time. Thereafter, the mother of the victim went towards the pond in search of her daughter. On the way, she met her nephew and, upon enquiry, he informed her that three persons from village Pandariya had taken the victim to Amlikapa Khar on their motorcycle and committed a wrongful act with her. The residents of Amlikapa caught the said three persons and, upon searching their mobile phones, some obscene videos of the victim were found therein. Accordingly, an offence was registered against the applicant and other co-accused persons. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant has been falsely implicated in the present matter. He submits that the first bail application of the present applicant was rejected on 14.10.2025 on merits. He submits that the allegations in respect of the offences registered against the applicant are not sustainable. The applicant, being innocent, denies the commission of the alleged offences and submits that he has been falsely implicated. He further submits that a bare perusal of the FIR would specifically show that the incident is alleged to have been committed by more than two persons; however, it does not specify the individual role of each accused. A bare perusal of the prosecution narrative makes it evident that the presence of the applicant at the time of the commission of the alleged crime cannot be culled out. He further submits that at the time of the alleged incident he was not present at the 3 spot and had arrived thereafter, as he had gone to take fuel for the motorcycle. He further submits that there are 41 prosecution witnesses out of which only 8 prosecution witnesses have been examined till date, the applicant has been in jail since 19.12.2024, conclusion of the trail may take some time therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the present applicant. 5. Learned State counsel opposes the bail application, submitting that the victim is a 22-year-old woman of unsound mind. It is alleged that the applicant, along with others, took the victim and committed a wrongful act. Obscene videos were recovered from the accused persons’ mobile phones, and the applicant’s FSL report is positive. Hence, the bail application deserves to be rejected. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and in view of the allegations that the victim is a 22-year-old woman of unsound mind, it is alleged that the applicant, along with others, took the victim and committed a wrongful act. Obscene videos were recovered from the mobile phones of the accused persons, and the applicant’s FSL report is positive. Looking to the nature and gravity of the offence, this Court is of the considered opinion that the applicant is not entitled to the grant of regular bail in the present case. 8. Accordingly, the Second bail application of the applicant – Jalesh Ratre, involved in Crime No. 207/2024 registered at Police Station – Jarhagaon, District Mungeli (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 64(2)(K), 70 and 77 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 66(E) of the Information Technology Act, is rejected. 4 9. OfÏce 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 Abhishek