1 2026:CGHC:732 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 2 of 2026 • Ganesh Rungta S/o Sanjay Rungta Aged About 27 Years R/o New Deepak Nagar, Durg, Tehsil And District - Durg (C.G.) ... Applicant versus • State of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Supela, Bhilai District - Durg (C.G.) ... Respondent (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Applicant : Mr. Tarendra Kumar Jha, Advocate For Respondent/State : Ms. Anusha Naik, Dy.G.A. Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 06/01/2026 1. This is Second anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the applicant, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.1245/2025 registered at Police Station – Supela, Bhilai District- Durg (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 64(2)(m), 308(2) of BNS, 2023. 2. The first anticipatory bail application filed by the applicant has been rejected by this Court in MCRCA No.1822 of 2025 vide order dated 19.11.2025. VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Digitally signed by VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Date: 2026.01.08 14:21:42 +0530 2 3. Prosecution case in brief is that the the complaint lodged a complaint with Police Station Supela, stating that she has studied B.Sc.(Nursing) and earlier she was working in Body and Soul Spa Studio, Bhilai. In December 2024, she went to Manghata for party sponsored by the owner of Spa when she met with the petitioner, in Manghata petitioner made some obscene Video of her, later on he forcibly made 4-5-time physical relation with her in the month of June, and July 2025 in Hotel Park Site, Idgah Chowk by threatening her to viral the obscene video, petitioner is still harassing her for establish physical relation by threatening her to viral the video. On the basis of this complaint an FIR No. 1245/2025 U/s 64(2) (m) and 308(2) of BNS has been registered. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He would submit that victim is a major girl and as per section 183 of the BNSS statement, it appears that she was a consenting party, and when the relationship could not be maintained, she lodged the FIR. He further submits that the first anticipatory bail application filed by the applicant has been rejected by this Court in MCRCA No.1822 of 2025 vide order dated 19.11.2025. He further submits that applicant moved second anticipatory bail on the ground that in first anticipatory bail rejection order he made wrong submission that the applicant is a married man by a mistake and appear to be spoken in some confusion. Further more investigation and trial are likely to take time, therefore, he submits that the present applicant is entitled to be released on anticipatory bail. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and submits that the applicant and the 3 victim, along with other girls, had gone to a party. There, he allegedly administered some intoxicating substance in her drink. Thereafter, she was brought into a room by the applicant, who took obscene photographs on his mobile and subsequently established physical relations with her. It is further stated in the said statement that the applicant had exploited the victim for sexual purposes, claiming that his wife was pregnant, and he compelled the victim to establish physical relations. Furthermore, he took videos of her on his mobile and threatened to make them viral. Therefore, the present anticipatory bail application of the applicant is liable to be rejected. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Considering the facts & circumstances of the case, gravity of offence, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, allegation levelled against the applicant and also considering the fact that the first anticipatory bail application filed by the applicant has already been rejected on merit by this Court in MCRCA No.1822 of 2025 vide order dated 19.11.2025, and simply because the victim has settled her dispute with the applicant, it cannot be a ground to grant him anticipatory bail as such, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. 8. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant– Ganesh Rungta filed under Section 482 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 involved in Crime No.1245/2025 registered at Police Station – Supela, Bhilai District-Durg (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 64(2)(m), 308(2) of BNS, 2023 of BNS, is rejected. 4 9. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 10. 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 vaishali