1 2026:CGHC:6872 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 597 of 2026 Dharam Lal Suryavanshi S/o Santosh Ratre Aged About 22 Years R/o Santosh Bada Jarhabhata, P.S. - Civil Line, District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House OfÏcer, Police Station Koni District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Arjit Tiwari, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Nupur Trivedi, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 06.02.2026 1. The applicant has preferred this Second Bail Application under Section 483 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 554/2024, registered at Police Station Koni District- Bilaspur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 70(1), 332, 351(2) of the BNS. 2. The earlier bail application of the applicant has already been rejected by this Court in MCRC No. 1774/2025, vide order dated 21.03.2025, on merits. Hence, the second bail application. KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 10.12.2024, the victim/complainant lodged an FIR before the Police of Police Station Koni, District-Bilaspur against the accused persons with the averment that on 10.12.2024, the present applicant along with co- accused Devraj Verma came to the shop of the victim and purchased cigarette after that she closed the shop and go to bring water from house, the applicant along with co-accused entered into the house of the victim and committed rape upon her. Thereafter, the concerned Police has registered the aforesaid offence against the applicant along with co-accused. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the earlier bail application of the applicant was rejected on merits, however, the present second bail application is being pressed on new and subsequent grounds. He submits that the applicant has neither committed nor participated in any act constituting the alleged offences. It is further submitted that the victim is a major girl aged about 18 years and from the overall circumstances, it appears that she was a consenting party and no offence as alleged is made out. He further points out that as per the complaint, the alleged incident took place on 10.12.2024, whereas the FIR was lodged on 17.12.2024, i.e., after a delay of seven days, for which no plausible explanation has been offered. It is also submitted that there are material contradictions in the statements of the victim recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. He further submits that as per the medical examination report, no external or 3 internal injuries were found on the body of the victim and the doctor has opined that there were no signs of recent sexual intercourse and no injuries indicating resistance, which makes the allegation of rape doubtful and raises a strong possibility of false implication. It is also submitted that the applicant has been in judicial custody since 18.12.2024. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant lastly submitted that the trial is already in progress, the statements of the victim’s mother and father have been recorded and the Investigating OfÏcer has also been cross-examined. Out of 13 prosecution witnesses, statements of 6 witnesses have already been recorded. The FSL and MLC reports are negative and during trial, the victim has not identified the applicant. Since the trial is likely to take considerable time for conclusion, he prays that the applicant be released on bail. 6. 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 by this Court in MCRC No. 1774/2025, vide order dated 21.03.2025, on merits. Hence, she prays that the present bail application is liable to be rejected. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of allegations and the fact that the earlier bail application of the applicant was rejected on merits, this Court notes the subsequent developments pleaded in the present second bail application. It is reflected that the trial is already in progress and the statements of 4 the victim’s mother and father have been recorded and the Investigating OfÏcer has also been cross-examined. Out of 13 prosecution witnesses, statements of 6 witnesses have already been recorded. The FSL and MLC reports are stated to be negative and during trial, the victim has not identified the applicant. The applicant is also in judicial custody for a considerable period. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the stage of trial and overall circumstances, this Court is inclined to allow the bail application. 9. Accordingly, the Second bail application of the applicant is hereby allowed. 10. Let applicant, Dharam Lal Suryavanshi, involved in Crime No. 554/2024, registered at Police Station Koni District- Bilaspur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 70(1), 332, 351(2) of the BNS, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i)The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufÏcient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail 5 during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 84 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section Section 209 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 351 of BNSS. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufÏcient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. 11. However, this Court hopes and trusts that the trial Court would make an earnest endeavour to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, if there is no legal impediment. 12. OfÏce is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal