1 2026:CGHC:14147 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 2761 of 2026 1 - Ankush @ Shatruhan Madhukar S/o Mukhiram Madhukar Aged About 19 Years 2- Ajit Joshi, aged 18 years, S/o Shanikumar Joshi, Both are R/o Villagae- Devri, Post Pandhi, P.S.- Seepat, Tahsil Masturi, District- Bilaspur (CG) ... Applicants versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through- S.H.O., Poice Station- Seepat, District- Bilaspur (CG) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant : Ms. Deblina Maity, Advocate. For State : Ms. Supriya Upasne, Govt. Advocate. Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J Order on Board 24.03.2026 1. This is second bail application seeking grant of bail to the Applicants who are in jail since 27.09.2025 in connection with Crime No.556/2025 registered at Police Station Seepat, District Bilaspur for the offence punishable under Section 65(2), 49 of BNS and Section 4&6 of POCSO Act. The trial court has framed charge against the applicants for the offence under Section 45/49 of BNS and Section 16/17 of POCSO Act. INDRAJEET SAHU Digitally signed by INDRAJEET SAHU Date: 2026.03.25 19:21:52 +0530 2 2. The first bail application of the applicants was dismissed as withdrawn on 05.01.2026 in MCrC No.10176 of 2025. 3. The case of prosecution in brief is that, on 21.09.2025 the applicants along with other co-accused persons committed rape upon the minor victim for which a report was lodged by the mother of victim on 26.09.2025. FIR was registered and the victim was medically examined and thereafter the accused persons were arrested and charge sheet was filed. 4. Learned Counsel for the applicants would submit that the first bail application of the applicants has been dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to repeat the same after examination of material witnesses. The victim and her mother have been examined as PW-2&PW-1 on 12.02.206 and 27.01.2026 respectively. Out of 29 witnesses, only two witnesses have been examined till date. The applicants are in jail since 27.09.2025; there is no considerable progress in the trial of the case and therefore they have filed this second bail application. 5. On the other hand the counsel for the State opposes the bail application and submitted while rejecting the first bail application of the applicant the merits of the case has been considered. In the present case there are more material witnesses in support of prosecution i.e. doctor and witnesses with respect to school record of the victim to prove her age. They are yet to be examined. Trial of the case is in progress. Since the merits of case has already been considered by this court, there is no change in circumstances to admit this second bail application. Therefore, their application are liable to be dismissed. 6. I have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the bail application. 3 7. Considering the submissions made by the counsel for the parties, considering the nature of allegation and evidence available in charge sheet against the applicants; trial of the case is in progress; two witnesses have been examined and other material witnesses like school teacher and doctor is yet to be examined, I am not inclined to admit this second bail application at this stage. 8. Accordingly, the second bail application stands dismissed at motion stage. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge inder