1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 5344 of 2026 Karan Rajak S/o Sanju Rajak, Aged About 21 Years R/o Kewatpara, Juna, P.S. City Kotwali, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station City Kotwali, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent (Cause-title is taken from CIS) For Applicant : Ms. Shreya Jaiswal, Adv. For Respondent/State : Ms. Deepeshwari Mahilwar, P.L. For Objector : Ms. Prarthana, Adv. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order On Board 29/06/2026 1. The applicant has preferred this 2nd bail application under Section 483 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita Act 2023 for grant of regular bail as he is arrested in connection with crime No.318/2025, registered at Police Station – City Kotwali, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) for offence punishable under Sections 65(1) of BNS and Section 3 (a) 4 (2) of the POCSO Act, 2012 2. First bail of the applicant was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 30.01.2026 passed in MCRC no.443/2026. 3. Mother of the victim appeared in person before this Court today and raised objection in granting bail to the applicant. 4. As per prosecution's case, the allegation against the applicant is that knowing fully well that the victim was a minor, he committed sexual SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Digitally signed by SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Date: 2026.07.01 12:04:15 +0530 2 intercourse with her. On report being lodged in this regard, the applicant was arrested on 20.06.2025. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the crime in question. She further submits that the applicant is in jail since 20.06.2025. Out of 22 prosecution witnesses, only 11 have been examined till date and the trial is likely to take time to be finalized, therefore, it is prayed that the applicant may be enlarged on bail. 6. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the bail application and submits that at the time of the incident, the victim was a minor. She has supported the prosecution case. Further, there has been no change in circumstances since the rejection of the first bail application. Hence, looking to the nature of offence, the applicant may not be released on bail. 7. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and evidence collected by the prosecution against the applicant. Further considering that there has been no change in circumstances since the rejection of the first bail application, without commenting on merits of the case, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail. 9. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected. 10. However, looking to the detention period of the applicant, the concerned Trial Court is directed to expedite the Trial and to ensure that the Trial is concluded as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of 4 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 11. A copy of this order be sent to concerned Trial Court forthwith for information and necessary action. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Shubham