1 CGHC010315142026 2026:CGHC:37472 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 7513 of 2026 1 - Domendra @ Domesh Dhruw S/o Pardeshi Ram Dhruw Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Jhiriya P.S. Hathband, District- Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Of Police Station Hathband, District- Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anil Kumar Gulati, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rishi Raj Pithwa, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order On Board 20.08.2026 1. The applicant has preferred this Second 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. 237/2025, registered at Police Station – Hathband, District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) for offence punishable under Sections 137(2), 127(2), 74, 75, 64, 62 of BNS and Section 8, 12 of POCSO Act. 2. The applicant’s first bail application was rejected on merits vide order dated 24.03.2026 passed in MCRC No.1679 of 2026, at a ABHIGYA SAXENA Digitally signed by ABHIGYA SAXENA 2 stage when charges had not been framed and the trial had not yet commenced. 3. The prosecution’s story, in brief, is that the father of the victim has lodged an FIR against the applicant to the effect that on 03.12.2025, his minor daughter (victim) was playing with an 11- year-old boy namely Lokeshwar Nishad, who was taken by the applicant to the vacant house of Darbari Dhruw and keep the door closed from inside, and the applicant thereafter attempted to commit rape upon the minor her, however, she started crying, so the applicant opened the door and the minor victim escaped from the house. Thereafter, the said incident was narrated by the victim to her mother, who informed her husband (the complainant). Based on the said complaint, an offence was registered against the applicant and after completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the crime in question. He further submits that as per the statement of the victim, an offence is not made out against the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant further stated that the mother and father of the victim did not remain consistent with their statements. He next submits that there is a delay of 01 day in lodging the FIR. The applicant has no criminal antecedents and has been in jail since 04.12.2025. He further submits that the change in circumstances, warranting consideration of the second bail application, is that the 3 trial has commenced and out of eight witnesses three have been examined including the father and mother of the victim before the Trial Court. He is ready to furnish adequate security and abide by all the conditions and directions that may be imposed by this Court while granting bail; therefore, the applicant may be released on bail. 5. Per contra, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the bail application and submits that at the time of the incident, the victim was aged about 4-5 years, at this stage, looking to the gravity of the offence, the applicant may not be released on bail. 6. In compliance of order dated 14.08.2026, the mother of victim is present through video conferencing from the concerned DLSA, and on being asked, they have raised ‘no objection’ to the application filed by the applicant for grant 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 material collected by the prosecution, the period of incarceration undergone by the applicant, and the fact that the conclusion of the trial is likely to take considerable time. Further considering the statements of the mother and father of the victim, and also taking into consideration the fact that the mother of the victim has raised no objection to the grant of bail to the applicant, therefore, this 4 Court is of the opinion that the applicant deserves to be extended the benefit of bail. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am inclined to allow the present application and direct the release of 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 solvent 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 Saxena