1 CGHC010169272026 2026:CGHC:29435 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 4165 of 2026 Deepak Kumar Rana S/o Laxman Rana Aged About 32 Years R/o Chirpurpal, Chhindgarh District- Sukma Chhattisgarh --- Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Chhindgarh District- Sukma (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Ms. Sangeeta Soni, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 13.07.2026 1. This is the second bail application filed under Section 483 of the BNSS for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 07/2025 registered at Police Station – Chhindgarh District- Sukma (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 64, 332(b), 351(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). 2. The earlier bail application of the applicant being MCRC No. 5583 of 2025 was rejected by this Court vide order dated 16.07.2025 on merits. RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the victim lodged a written complaint before the concerned police station alleging that the applicant had repeatedly established physical relations with her on several occasions and at different places against her will and under circumstances constituting the alleged offences. On the basis of the said complaint, the police registered an FIR against the present applicant for offences punishable under Sections 64, 332(b) and 351(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and thereafter commenced investigation into the matter. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that this is the second bail application and the first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Hon’ble Court on merit. It is further submitted that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that the relationship between the applicant and the victim was consensual in nature and arose out of a long-standing love affair between them. She further submits that the victim was a consenting party throughout the relationship and that no complaint was lodged by her during the subsistence of their relationship. It is further contended that the allegations made in the FIR are an afterthought and have been levelled due to subsequent personal differences between the parties. She submits that the DNA report obtained during investigation has not supported the prosecution case and the same is favourable to the applicant. It is also submitted that during the relevant period, the engagement of the victim had been solemnized with another person, which itself indicates the nature of the relationship between 3 the parties and casts serious doubt upon the allegations levelled against the applicant. She further submits that the investigation has been completed and the charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court, therefore, custodial interrogation of the applicant is no longer required and further the applicant is in jail since 12.02.2025. Hence, she prays for grant of second bail to the applicant. 5. On the other hand, the learned State Counsel opposed the second bail application and submitted that the first bail application of the applicant is rejected on merit. He further submits that the statement of the victim clearly reveals that the applicant, who is her neighbour, used to visit her house during the night hours and repeatedly established physical relations with her against her wishes despite her resistance. The victim has further stated that the applicant threatened her with dire consequences and warned her not to disclose the incidents to anyone. He further submits that as a consequence of the repeated sexual acts committed by the applicant, the victim became pregnant, which came to light when her abdomen started swelling, whereafter her family members and local health workers approached the police and reported the matter. It is also submitted that the victim subsequently gave birth to a male child, who is presently about five months old. He contends that the statement of the victim is consistent and duly supported by the material collected during investigation, and therefore the allegations cannot be termed as false or fabricated at this stage. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to be released on 4 second bail. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. From the perusal of the record, it transpires that the earlier bail application of the applicant being MCRC No. 5583 of 2025 was rejected by this Court vide order dated 16.07.2025 on merits and the new ground for filing of the second bail application is that the applicant is in jail since 12.02.2025 and the relationship between the parties was consensual, the DNA report is favourable to the applicant, and the victim had become engaged to another person, but also considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the allegations levelled against the applicant, the statement of the victim recorded during investigation wherein she has specifically alleged that the applicant repeatedly established physical relations with her against her wishes and threatened her not to disclose the incidents to anyone, the victim became pregnant and subsequently gave birth to a male child who is presently about five months old, further it is noteworthy that the said engagement had taken place only for a week. Furthermore, it is brought to the notice of this Court that the trial has substantially progressed and is at the verge of its completion. Therefore, at this advanced stage of the proceedings, this Court does not find it to be a fit case for grant of second bail. Hence, I am not inclined to grant second bail to the applicant. 5 8. Accordingly, the second bail application of the applicant – Deepak Kumar Rana, involved in Crime No. 07/2025 registered at Police Station – Chhindgarh District- Sukma (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 64, 332(b), 351(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, is rejected. 9. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 10. 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 Rahul Dewangan