1 2026:CGHC:13848 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 1853 of 2026 1 - Dwarika Das Bairagi S/o Lt. Mohan Das Bairagi, Aged About 59 Years R/o Village Jarve, P.S. Nagrada, Tahsil Baradwar, District Sakti (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, P.S.- Champa, District Janjgir Champa C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Applicant (s) : Ms. Reena Singh, Advocate For Respondent/State : Shri Rajkumar Sahu, PL (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board 23/03/2026 The applicant has filed this second bail application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrrik Suraksha Sanhita for grant of regular bail as he is in custody in connection with Crime No. 557/2025 registered at police station Champa, District Janjgir-Champa (CG) for the offence punishable under Sections 65(2) of the BNS and Section 4(2) of the POCSO Act. The earlier bail application preferred by the applicant has been SUGUNA DUBEY Digitally signed by SUGUNA DUBEY Date: 2026.03.24 11:06:46 +0530 2 dismissed on merits by this Court vide order dated 28.11.2025 in M.Cr.C. No. 9729 of 2025. Counsel for the applicant submits that three prosecution witnesses have been examined before the trial court and as such no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the applicant in further custody. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that there is no material change in the circumstances after dismissal of the earlier application, and hence, the applicant is not entitled to bail. Victim and her mother are present before this Court through the concerned DLSA and have raised objection for grant of bail. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions and after perusing the evidence, statement of the witnesses as also the case diary and also that the first bail application was rejected on merits and there is no substantial change in the circumstances, at this stage, I am not inclined to allow this bail application. Accordingly, the bail application filed by applicant is hereby rejected. However, looking to the detention period of the applicant, trial Court is expected to expedite the trial. Accordingly, the application is dismissed as withdrawn. It is directed that the trial court shall decide the case as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Sd/- (Arviind Kumar Verma) Judge