1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 5607 of 2026 Harish @ Punit Yadav S/o Shri Nanku Yadav Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Kayabandha Atal Chowk Police Staion Mandir Hasaud, District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Applicant Versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through - The Station House Officer, Police Station, Rakhi, District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Non-applicant [Cause-title taken from Case Information System (CIS)] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Applicant : Ms. Ankita Goswami, Advocate For Non-applicant : Ms. Richa Sahu, Panel Lawyer ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal (Order on Board) 25.06.2026 1. Heard. 2. This is second bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short the “BNSS”) on behalf of the applicant for grant of bail, as he has been arrested on 01.09.2025 in connection with Crime No.146/2025, registered at Police Station Rakhi, District Raipur (CG) for offence under Sections 351(2), 115(2) & 74 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short the “BNS”) and also under Section 08 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short the “POCSO Act”). 3. The first bail application being MCRC-9995-2025 has been SAIFAN KHAN Digitally signed by SAIFAN KHAN 2 dismissed as withdrawn from this Court vide order dated 05.01.2026 and while withdrawal of the same liberty was granted in favour of the applicant that he may repeat his prayer for grant of bail after examination of material witnesses. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that total 5 witnesses have been examined in the case out of total 15 witnesses cited by the prosecution and they have not supported the case of the prosecution at all. The victim has been examined as PW-01 and her father has been examined as PW-02 and there are material contradiction in their evidence. Learned counsel submits that since material witnesses have been examined and they have not duly supported the case of the prosecution, the applicant may be released on bail. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that on the date when first bail application of the applicant stood dismissed as withdrawn, victim (PW-01) and her father (PW-02) have already been examined and there is no other material placed on record to show that other witnesses have also been examined thereafter or there is any change in circumstance. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the material available on record. 7. It transpires that the first bail application of the applicant was 3 dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 05.01.2026 (Annexure-P/02) with the liberty to repeat the same after examination of the material witnesses. It further transpires from the documents annexed with the bail application i.e. Annexure-A/4, which is deposition of the victim (PW- 01) and her father (PW-02) recorded on 30.12.2025, that on the date when the first bail application of the applicant stood dismissed as withdrawn, these two witnesses were already examined before the learned trial Court and there is no other document or any material placed on record by the applicant to demonstrate that there is any change in circumstances thereafter. Therefore, I am not inclined to admit this second bail application. 8. Accordingly, this second bail application is dismissed at motion stage. sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge s@if