1 2026:CGHC:4001 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 785 of 2026 Itwari Bhaskar S/o Anupram Bhaskar Aged About 20 Years R/o Village Jhafal, Police Station And Tehsil Lormi, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant. versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Lormi, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. ...State/ Respondent. For Applicant : Shri Pranjal Agrawal and Shri Kanhaiya Ram Yadav, Advocates. For State/Respondent : Ms. Supriya Upasane, GA. (Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Order on Board 22/01/2026 1. This is the Second bail application filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant, who has been arrested in connection with Crime No.410/2025 registered at Police Station Lormi, District Mungeli (C.G) for the offence punishable under Sections 87, 64 (1), 65 (1) of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 and Section 4 of the POCSO Act. 2. The First bail application of the applicant was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to repeat the same after examination of the material AVINASH SHARMA Digitally signed by AVINASH SHARMA Date: 2026.01.24 11:29:49 +0530 2 witnesses vide order dated 28.10.2025 passed in MCRC No.7740 of 2025. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that after rejection of first bail application, the victim and her parents as well as the school teachers were examined, however, there are material discrepancies in their evidence and there is every chance of compromise between the parties. He submits that the applicant is in jail since 29.06.2025 and till date, only seven witnesses have been examined and trial of the case will take its own time, therefore, he has filed second bail application of the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application and submits that there are ample evidence against the applicant that he committed alleged offence with the victim and even in her court evidence, she supported the prosecution’s case, therefore, the applicant is not entitled for bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the bail application. 6. It is case of the prosecution that father of the victim lodged a report against the applicant that his minor daughter was sexually exploited by the applicant in the month of April, 2025. The offence was registered against the applicant and statement of the victim was recorded in which, she disclosed that on 13.04.2025 in the night, the applicant took her inside his room and committed rape upon her. As per the material available in the charge sheet, the victim appears to be about 16 years of age. The first bail application of the applicant has already been dismissed by this Court on 28.10.2025 which was dismissed after raising of arguments by learned counsel for the applicant and further, 3 trial of the case is in progress and till 04.12.2025, 5 witnesses have already been examined, therefore, this Court is not inclined to consider it as a change in circumstances and therefore, the Second bail application of the applicant is rejected at the motion stage itself. 7. The applicant is at liberty to repeat their prayer for bail if there is no considerable progress in the trial. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Avinash