1 CGHC010254672026 2026:CGHC:28189 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 6029 of 2026 Rahul Sharma S/o Kishanchand Sharma Aged About 35 Years R/o Junheda, P.S.- Tigaon, District- Faridabad (Haryana) Presently Confined In Central Jail, Raipur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station- Tikrapara, District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Virendra Kashyap, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Palak Dwivedi, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 08.07.2026 1. This is the Second bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 44/2026 registered at Police Station – Tikrapara, District – Raipur (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 64, 351(2), 115(2), 127 and Section 308(2) Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. The earlier bail application of the applicant being MCRC No. 5660 of 2026 was rejected by this Court vide order dated 29.06.2026 on merits. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on the basis of a written complaint submitted by the victim, Police Station Tikrapara, District Raipur, ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2026.07.09 20:01:07 +0530 2 registered Crime No. 44/2026 against the applicant for the offences punishable under Sections 64, 351(2), 115(2), 127, and 308(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. It is alleged that the victim was acquainted with the applicant and that, on the date of the incident, she met him at a hotel situated within the jurisdiction of Police Station Tikrapara. The prosecution further alleges that the applicant assaulted the victim, forcibly established physical relations with her against her will, criminally intimidated her, and thereby committed the aforesaid offences. During the course of the investigation, the statements of the witnesses were recorded, the victim was medically examined, and upon completion of the investigation, the police filed a charge sheet against the applicant before the competent Court, where the trial is presently pending. 4. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that this is the second bail application of the applicant. The first bail application was rejected vide order dated 29.06.2026 on merits. He submits that the prosecution case itself reveals that the applicant and the victim were admittedly well acquainted with each other. The defence case is that both parties were in a long-standing consensual relationship and had been residing together as husband and wife. The present prosecution has arisen out of disputes that subsequently developed between the parties. He also submits that the applicant has obtained information under the Right to Information Act from the Central Jail, Raipur, which demonstrates that the victim visited the applicant on 08.12.2025, 15.12.2025, and 06.01.2026. On each of these occasions, her relationship with the applicant was officially recorded as “Wife” in the jail visitation register. These official records prima facie support the defence version regarding the subsisting relationship between the parties. He also submits that prior to the registration of the present crime, the same victim had lodged Crime No. 3 485/2025 at Police Station Purani Basti, District Raipur, against the applicant arising out of their personal relationship and alleged domestic disputes. In the said case, the learned 11th Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur, vide order dated 12.01.2026, was pleased to enlarge the applicant on regular bail. He submits that both the earlier criminal case and the present case have been instituted by the same victim and arise out of the same personal relationship between the parties. Even in the earlier prosecution, it was alleged that the applicant and the victim were residing together. Thus, the existence of the earlier criminal case itself demonstrates the admitted acquaintance and relationship between the parties. The true nature, extent, and legal effect of such relationship can only be adjudicated upon during the course of the trial. He submits that the applicant has been in jail since 16.01.2026, conclusion of the trial may take some time, therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the applicant. 5. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the applicant’s earlier bail application had already been rejected on merits. It was further contended that no substantial change in circumstances has occurred thereafter so as to justify reconsideration of the prayer for bail. She also submits that the statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS, 2023, prima facie supports the prosecution case, and the medical examination report (MLC) also corroborates the allegations. Considering the gravity of the offence and the material available on record, it is prayed that the second bail application deserves to be rejected. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Considering the material available on record, particularly the statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS, 2023, which prima 4 facie supports the prosecution case, the medical examination report (MLC) corroborating the allegations, and the fact that the applicant’s earlier bail application was rejected on merits, further, if any FIR was earlier lodged by the victim against the applicant cannot discard or falsify the allegation made in the present FIR, this Court finds that no substantial change in circumstances has been brought on record so as to warrant reconsideration of the prayer for bail. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail, and the second bail application deserves to be rejected. 8. Accordingly, the Second bail application of the applicant – Rahul Sharma, involved in Crime No. 44/2026 registered at Police Station – Tikrapara, District – Raipur (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 64, 351(2), 115(2), 127 and Section 308(2) Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, is rejected. 9. 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 Abhishek