1 CGHC010285332026 2026:CGHC:34326 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 6885 of 2026 Chandrakant Nishad S/o Hemlal Nishad Aged About 25 Years R/o Barbhata, P.S. Fingeswar, District Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh ... Appellants versus State of Chhattisgarh through Police Station - Fingeswar, District Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For the applicant : Mr. Hardik Jaiswal, Advocate For the State : Ms. Deepeshwari Mahilwar, Panel Lawyer (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Order on Board 05.08.2026 1. The victim along with her brother appeared through VC from the concerned DLSA and objected to grant bail. 2. This is 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. 238/2025 registered at Police Station Fingeshwar, District Gariyaband (CG) for the offences under Sections 69, 87, 115(2), 351(3) of BNS and Sections 4 & 6 of the POCSO Act. 3. The first bail application was rejected by order dated 17.03.2026 passed in MCRC No. 2093 of 2026. 4. As per the prosecution case, on 04.08.2025 the victim aged about 21 years lodged a complaint before the concerned Police Station alleging that she was acquainted with the applicant prior to 5 years of lodging the complaint. The applicant on the pretext of marriage had committed sexual 2 intercourse with her and on 28.08.2025 the applicant married with another lady. On such report, the offence was registered, her statement was recorded u/s 183 of BNSS and the applicant was arrested. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the prosecutrix is major and the applicant has been falsely implicated. Even the medical report does not support the prosecution case. The report has been lodged with an abnormal delay of more than 5 years by projecting a concocted case. He submits that till date, out of total 12 witnesses, only 2 have been examined; the applicant is in jail since 17.03.2026 and there is no immediate possibility of conclusion of trial at the earliest. Therefore, he may be enlarged on bail at this stage. 6. Per contra, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application and submits that at the time of incident, the victim was minor, therefore, the bail should be rejected. 7. Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and the fact that the earlier bail application has been rejected considering the court statement of the victim and since no changing circumstances are shown to have taken place after rejecting the first bail application, I am not inclined to allow this second bail application. Accordingly, it is rejected. 8. However, looking to the long custody period of the applicant, the trial Court is directed to expedite the trial as early as possible preferably within a period of 5 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The registry shall send a copy of this order for information. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Rao