1 2026:CGHC:22981 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 4285 of 2026 1 - Gupendra Markam S/o Mohan Lal Markam Aged About 21 Years Resident Of Village Paisara Police Station Farasgaon District- Kondagaon Chhattisgarh 2 - Dev Kumar Netam S/o Laxminath Netam Aged About 27 Years Resident Of Van Borgaon Police Station Farasgaon District- Kondgagaon Chhattisgarh ... Applicants versus State of Chhattisgarh through Station House Officer, Police Station Farasgaon District- Kondagaon Chhattisgarh, ... Respondent For the applicants : Mr. Rahil Kochar, Advocate For the state : Ms. Deepeshwari Mahilwar, Panel Lawyer (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Order on Board 14.05.2026 1. This is second bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicants in Crime No.113/2025 registered at Police Station Farasgaon, District Kondagaon, C.G. for the offences under Sections 137(2), 70(2), 3(5) of BNS and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. 2. As per the prosecution case, the allegation against the applicants is that on 22.03.2025, the applicants allured the minor victim and committed forcible sexual intercourse with her. Thereafter again on 01.09.2025, when the victim went to a ceremony, the applicants took the ALLENA ANNAJEE RAO Digitally signed by ALLENA ANNAJEE RAO Date: 2026.05.15 16:35:53 +0530 2 victim in their car and committed forcible physical relations with her, thereby the offence has been committed. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the medical report does not show any external or internal injuries to prove forcible sexual intercourse. Referring to the court statement of the victim, he submits that the victim and accused came to be acquainted and before the incident, she used to chat with the applicants, therefore, she was consenting party. The evidence of School Teacher (P.W.10) is not supported by any material documents, therefore, the date of birth of victim entered in school admission register is not proved to show that she was minor at the time of incident. Till date out of 29 witnesses only 12 have been examined and at the time rejection of first bail on 04.02.2026 only 3 witnesses have been examined. The applicants are in jail since 04.09.2025 and there is no immediate possibility of disposal of case, therefore, the applicants may be enlarged on bail at this stage. 4. Per contra, learned State Counsel opposing the bail application submits that at the time of incident, the victim was minor and there is no changing circumstances after rejecting the first bail application. 5. The Victims along with her father has appeared through VC from the concerned DLSA and raised objection to grant bail to the applicants. 6. Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties; the over all facts and circumstances of the case especially the fact that there is no changing circumstances after rejecting the first bail application, I am not inclined to release the applicant on regular bail. Accordingly, this bail application is rejected. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Rao