1 CGHC010244632026 2026:CGHC:34516 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 6232 of 2026 1 - Vasudev Singh S/o Lt. Bechan Singh, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Village Sirjanagar, Thana Mahua, District- Vaishli (Bihar). ... Applicant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station- Kusumi, District Balrampur- Ramanujganj (C.G.). ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Navneet Kumar Yadav Adv. For Respondent/State : Ms. Deepa Singh, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order On Board 06/08/2026 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 in Crime No. 85/2025 registered at Police Station Kusmi, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj (CG) for the offences under Sections 64(2) (m) of BNS, Sections 4(1) and 6 of the POCSO Act and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC & ST (PoA) Act, 1989. 2. The first bail application preferred by the applicants was dismissed on merits by this Court vide order dated 11.02.2026 passed in MCRC No. 905/2026. SOURABH PATEL Digitally signed by SOURABH PATEL Date: 2026.08.06 16:52:32 +0530 2 3. As per the prosecution case, the mother of victim had lodged complaint on 06.10.2025 that on 05.10.2025 her minor daughter had gone to deliver food to her grand father and after delivering food, she did not return. On search being made, she came to know that the applicant had forcibly taken the girl to his hut where he committed sexual intercourse with her. Then the complainant brought her daughter to home and when she asked, the victim informed that for the past one month, applicant had been forcibly taking to his hut where he committed rape on 3 - 4 occasions. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. It is submitted that a land/agricultural dispute exists between the applicant and the parents of the prosecutrix, owing to which the mother of the prosecutrix has lodged a false complaint against him. It is further submitted that, subsequent to the dismissal of the first bail application, there has been a change in circumstances inasmuch as four prosecution witnesses have been examined, and there are various contradictions in their statements. He further submits that the applicant has been in jail since 07.10.2025, and there is no immediate possibility of disposal of the case; therefore, he may be enlarged on bail. 5. Per contra, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the victim was a minor girl at the time of the incident and that the applicant had committed forcible sexual intercourse with her. She further submits that the victim has 3 been examined and the mother, who is an eyewitness to the incident, has also been examined and both have supported the prosecution case. She also submits that, out of a total of 16 witnesses, only four have been examined till date, and the remaining material witnesses are yet to be examined, therefore, at this stage, the applicant should not be released on bail. 6. The victim along with her mother has appeared through VC from the concerned DLSA and raised objection to grant bail. 7. Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and the over all facts situation of the case, I do not find any good ground to release the applicant on bail. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected. 8. However, looking to the custody period of the applicant, the trial Court is directed to expedite the trial as early as possible. 9. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge $ourabh