1 / 3 2026:CGHC:18236 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 3490 of 2026 Sameer Dhiwar S/o Govardhan Dhiwar Aged About 18 Years R/o Village Bhojpur, Ward No. 18, Police Station Champa, District Janjgir-Champa Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through S H O Police Station Champa, District Champa Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. K. Arul, Advocate For State /Respondent : Ms. Richa Sahu, PL (Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Order on Board 21/04/2026 1. This is Fourth bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 for grant of regular bail to applicant, who has been arrested on 17/05/2025 in connection with Crime No. 160/2025 Registered at P.S. Champa, District Champa (C.G.) for the offence under Sections 137(2), 87, 64 (2)(m) of BNS and Section 04 and 06 of POCSO Act. ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA Date: 2026.04.23 11:06:15 +0530 2 / 3 2. Earlier the first bail application of the applicant has been dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 17.10.2025 by this Court in MCRC No. 7614/2025. Thereafter, the second bail application of the applicant has also been dismissed on 18.11.2025 by this Court passed in MCRC No. 9265/2025. Lastly the Third Bail Application of the applicant bearing MCRC No.9741 of 2025 was dismissed on 01/12/2025. 3. The case of the prosecution is that the complainant lodged a report at the Champa Police Station that his minor niece, the victim, had left home without informing him on April 23, 2025, at 10:30 a.m. When they searched the area, they could not find her. They suspected that an unknown person had lured her away. On the basis of the said report the investigation was carried out. During the investigation, the victim was recovered to the complainant and he produced her at the police station on May 17, 2025. Thereafter, the present applicant was arrested. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant is in jail since 17/05/2025 and till date only 04 witnesses have been examined out of 15 witnesses, therefore, the progress of the trial is not good. He would next submit that the prosecution witnesses who have been examined have not supported the prosecution case. He would next submit that the victim was major at the time of incident which is evident from her own testimony. He would lastly submit that under the circumstances there is every likelihood of delay in trial, therefore, the applicant may be enlarged on bail. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes and submitted 3 / 3 that earlier bail applications of the applicant have been rejected and there is no change of circumstances. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the bail application. 7. Considering the entire facts & circumstances of the case more particularly the fact that the earlier bail applications of the applicant have been rejected and the victim and her mother have already been examined before dismissal of the earlier bail applications, therefore, there is no change in the circumstances to entertain this repeat bail application and further considering the fact that the perusal of the order-sheets of the trial Court would show that the learned trial Court is trying to expedite the trial by issuing summons and bailable warrants to the witnesses. 8. Accordingly, I do not find any change in circumstances in the present case and the Fourth bail application of the applicant is accordingly dismissed at this stage. SD/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) JUDGE ashu