1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 271 of 2026 1 - Shailesh Bansod S/o Subodhan Aged About 35 Years R/o Sunder Nagar Mahadev Ghat Road, Bhim Nagar Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... applicant (s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Gatapar, District District Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan Gandai Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For applicant (s) : Mr. L. K. Ramteke, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rishi Raj Pithawa, Dy. G.A. Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. Order on board 12.01.2026. 1. This is the second bail application of the applicant. The first bail application of the applicant has been dismissed on merits vide order dated 06.05.2025 passed in MCRC No. 2595/2025. The applicant is claiming regular bail who has been arrested on 28.09.2024 in connection with Crime No. 66/2023 registered at P.S. Gatapar, Dist- Khairagarh- Chhuikhadan-Gandai (CG) for the offence under Section 363, 366 A, 376 (2)(j)(n) of IPC and Section 5 (j)(ii)(l)/6 of POCSO Act. SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Digitally signed by SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Date: 2026.01.13 11:51:38 +0530 2 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 28.11.2023, the father of the victim lodged a missing report that his minor daughter is missing 25.11.2023 and her whereabout could not be traced out. The FIR has been registered for the offence under Section 363 of IPC and started investigation. During investigation, the victim was recovered on 27.09.2024 from the possession of the applicant at Raipur. After recording her statement, the other offences under Section 366-A, 376 (2)(j) and (n) of IPC and Section 5 (j)(ii)(l)/6 of POCSO Act have been added The applicant is arrested on 28.09.2024 and charge sheet has been filed. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant is in jail since 28.09.2024 and till date only two witnesses have been examined. The trial is not in its considerable progress. There is sufficient in the charge-sheet that she is a major girl. Looking to the condition of trial as the witnesses are not turning up, the applicant may be released on bail. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State opposes and has submitted that the summons were regularly issued to the witnesses and in absence thereof, the bailable warrant was also issued to the witnesses and the learned trial Court is making their endeavour to conclude the trial at the earliest. The first bail application of the applicant has been dismissed on merits, therefore, he is not entitled for bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the bail application. 6. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, considering the allegation against the applicant as well as the material available in the charge-sheet, further considering that, the first bail 3 application of the applicant has been dismissed on merits vide order dated 06/05/2025 and on that day the victim has already been examined as PW/2 before the learned trial Court, although, the witnesses are not turning up for recording their evidence, despite service of summons to them, but from perusal of the order sheets, it transpires that learned trial Court is making its endeavour to proceed with the trial and to record the evidence of the witnesses, I am not inclined to consider it to be a change in circumstances to admit this second bail application of the applicant. 7. Accordingly, the second bail application of the applicant is rejected. 8. However, considering the fact that the applicant is in jail since 28.09.2024, the learned trial Court is directed to expedite the trial of the case. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Sagrika