1 2026:CGHC:2590 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 9372 of 2025 1 - Ram Kumar Patel S/o Chhedu Ram Patel Aged About 31 Years R/o Patel Para Jamnipali, Ward No. 04, Urga, Police Station Urga, District Korba (C.G.) 2 - Manoj Patel S/o Chhedu Ram Patel Aged About 34 Years R/o Patel Para Jamnipali, Ward No. 04, Urga, Police Station Urga, District Korba (C.G.) 3 - Narendra Kumar Patel S/o Chhedu Ram Patel Aged About 37 Years R/o Patel Para Jamnipali, Ward No. 04, Urga, Police Station Urga, District Korba (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station House Officer, P.S. Champa, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant(s) : Mr. Manoj Kumar Jaiswal, Advocate. For Respondent : Ms. Ankita Shukla, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 15.01.2026 1. The applicants have preferred this Second Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’), for grant of regular bail, as they have been arrested in VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2026.01.20 14:29:49 +0530 2 connection with Crime No. 208/2025, registered at Police Station Champa, District : Janjgir-Champa (CG) for the offence punishable under Section 70(1) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short ‘BNS’). 2. The earlier bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 19.09.2025 in MCRC No. 7556 of 2025 on merits. 3. The prosecution story in brief, is that the victim lodged a report registered in Crime No. 208/2025 at Police Station Champa has been registered under Section 70(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (B.N.S.) against the applicants/accused. It is alleged that the applicants/accused, acting in concert, committed a brutal gang rape upon the victim within her own house. As per the prosecution story, the accused forcibly restrained the victim by holding her hands and legs and subjected her to gang rape for approximately four hours, which constitutes a grave and heinous offence, which led to the registration of the alleged offence against the applicants, subsequently, the applicants were arrested. Hence, the bail application. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. He further submit that It is submitted that the prosecutrix herself had called the applicants and that all the alleged incidents took place with her free consent, and it is further stated that she is a major. It is also submitted that the trial is still pending and notices have repeatedly been issued to the prosecutrix; however, she could not be traced and the notices have been returned unserved on more than four occasions, as reflected from the order sheet of the Trial Court annexed herewith as Annexure A/4. The applicants have been in judicial custody since 20.05.2025, and 3 their prolonged pre-trial detention is causing serious hardship, as they are the sole bread earners of their families and their continued incarceration is adversely affecting the livelihood of their dependents. It is further submitted that the applicants are permanent residents of the above-mentioned place and possess movable as well as immovable properties there, and therefore, there is no likelihood of their absconding or tampering with the prosecution witnesses. The applicants are ready and willing to furnish adequate security and undertake to abide by all the terms, conditions and directions that may be imposed by this Hon’ble Court while granting bail. 5. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court. She further submits that the allegations against the applicants are of a grave and heinous nature, involving serious offences against the victim, who is stated to have suffered injuries as well. In view of the seriousness of the allegations, it is contended that the applicants are not entitled to the grant of bail. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. From a perusal of the order dated 19.09.2025, it is apparent that the first bail applications of the applicants were rejected on merits. Further, considering the submissions made and the fact that the trial is presently in progress, merely because the prosecutrix has not supported the prosecution case and has turned hostile cannot, by itself, be a ground to enlarge the applicant on bail, as such a circumstance may indicate possible tampering with the evidence. In 4 view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present case is not a fit one for granting bail to the applicant. 8. Accordingly, the bail application of applicants - Ram Kumar Patel, Manoj Patel and Narendra Kumar Patel involved in Crime No. 208/2025, registered at Police Station Champa, District : Janjgir- Champa (CG) for the offence punishable under Section 70(1) of BNS, is rejected. 9. However, this Court hopes and trusts that the trial Court shall make earnest endeavour to conclude the trial expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, if there is no legal impediment. 10. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice vaibhav