1 CGHC010233352026 2026:CGHC:28737 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 5748 of 2026 Dharmendra Sonwani Alias Vicky S/o Rati Ram Sonwani Aged About 22 Years R/o Sarvamangla Nagar Durpa P.S. Kusmunda District Korba C.G. ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through- Station Head Officer P.S. Kusmunda District Korba C.G. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Anshul Tiwari, Adv. For Respondent/State : Ms. Deepa Singh, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order On Board 09/07/2026 1. The victim along with her mother appeared before this Court today and raised objection in granting bail to the Applicant. 2. 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.351/2025, registered at Police Station – Kusmunda, District- Korba (C.G.) for offence punishable under Sections 376(2) of IPC and Sections 4 & 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012. 3. First bail of the applicant was dismissed on merits vide order dated 12.02.2026 passed in MCRC no.1021/2026. 4. The prosecution's case, in short, is that on 19.04.2023, the applicant induced the minor victim and committed sexual intercourse with her. Thereafter, on many occasions, he committed sexual intercourse with her due to which she became pregnant two times. Based on above, offence has been registered against the applicant and he was arrested on 27.11.2025. SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Digitally signed by SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Date: 2026.07.10 10:44:01 +0530 2 5. Learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that the Applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the crime in question. The change in circumstances, as compared to the first bail application, is that at the time of disposal of the first bail application of the Applicant, the victim had not been examined, whereas she has now been examined. There are material omissions and contradictions in her statement. He further submits that age of the victim has not been proved. Further, there was a love affair between the applicant and the victim and she was a consenting party. The Applicant has been in custody since 27.11.2025. Out of 21 prosecution witnesses, only 2 have been examined till date, and the trial is likely to take considerable time for conclusion. In view of the above, 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 incident, the victim was minor and she supported the prosecution’s case. Further, she became pregnant by the applicant, therefore, looking to the nature of offence, the applicant may not be granted benefit of 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, the evidence collected by the prosecution, the period of detention of the Applicant, the change in circumstances as the victim has been examined and the statement of the victim, and further considering that the trial is likely to take considerable time for conclusion, without commenting on merits of the case, I am inclined to release the applicant on bail. 9. Accordingly, the bail application is Allowed. 10. It is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail on executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 20,000/- with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for his appearance before the said Court as and when directed. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Shubham