1 2026:CGHC:8904 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 1742 of 2026 Amrit Raj S/o Shri Udyanand Thakur Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Bangaon, P.S. K Nagar, District Purnia (Bihar) ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, Jashpur, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicants : Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, Advocate. For Non-applicant : Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 19/02/2026 1. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the default has already been cured as has been pointed out by the Registry. 2. This is the Second bail application filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 99/2022 registered at Police Station- Jashpur, District- Jashpur (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366(A), 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4, 6 of POCSO Act. 3. The earlier first bail application of the applicant being MCRC No. KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 4269/2024 was rejected by this Court vide order dated 11.12.2024, on merits. Hence this Second bail application. 4. The prosecution case is that, the applicant introduced himself to the minor victim though Facebook and on 03-04-2022 he kidnapped her and persuaded her for sexual intercourse and took her various places and committed rape upon her on the pretext of marriage. The victim was recovered from the house of the applicant and he was arrested on 21-11-2022. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court on merits. In the present second bail application, a new ground has been raised to the effect that only one or two prosecution witnesses have been left to be examined and the trial is likely to take considerable time for its conclusion. It is further submitted that there is no cogent or reliable evidence on record with respect to the age of the victim. He further submits that the victim was in a love affair with the applicant and had voluntarily eloped with him and during that period, consensual physical relations were established between them. It is contended that she did not raise any objection while travelling with the applicant or while residing with him and that marriage was also solemnized between them. The applicant is in judicial custody since 21.11.2022, the charge-sheet has already been filed and there is no likelihood of tampering with evidence. Therefore, it is prayed that the applicant be enlarged on bail. 6. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposed the prayer for grant of bail and submits that the first bail application of the 3 applicant has already been rejected by this Court on merits. She further submits that the applicant has criminal antecedent of State of Bihar and he was produced before the trial Court on production warrant. hence, he is not entitled for grant of bail. 7. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 8. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that the first bail application of the applicant was rejected on merits after detailed consideration of the nature of allegations and the material available on record. While deciding the earlier application, this Court had also taken note of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in X Vs. State of Rajasthan and Another, Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 13378 of 2024 decided on 27.11.2024, wherein it has been categorically observed that in serious offences, once the trial has commenced and the prosecution has started examining its witnesses, the Courts should ordinarily refrain from entertaining bail applications and that grant of bail at such stage by assessing the deposition of the victim may have an adverse impact on the pending trial. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has further held that only in cases where the trial is unduly delayed for no fault of the accused, the Court may consider bail on the ground of violation of the right to speedy trial. 9. In the present case, the trial is already in progress and as submitted, only one or two prosecution witnesses remain to be examined. Thus, the trial is at its concluding stage and cannot be said to be unduly delayed. The grounds urged in the present second 4 bail application do not constitute any substantial change in circumstances warranting reconsideration of the earlier rejection on merits. In view of the gravity of the allegations, the stage of the trial and the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court is not inclined to exercise its discretion in favour of the applicant. 10. Accordingly, the second bail application stands rejected. 11. However, this Court hopes and trusts that the trial Court shall make an earnest endeavour to conclude the trial in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Court, if there is no legal impediment. 12. OfÏce is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. - S Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal