1 CGHC010307702026 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 7609 of 2026 Manish Kumar Rajwade S/o Krishna Kumar Rajwade Aged About 22 Years R/o Girwarganj, P.S. Bishrampur, District- Surajpur, (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh through Police Station- Bishrampur, District- Surajpur (C.G.) ... Respondent For the applicant : Mr. Rahil Kochar & Mr. Pravin Kumar Jain, Advocates For Respondent(s) : Mr. Suresh Tandon, Panel Lawyer (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Order on Board 25.08.2026 1. 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. 294/2025 registered at Police Station Bishrampur, District Surajpur (CG) for the offences punishable under Sections 65(1), 79, 332 of BNS and Sections 4 & 6 of the POCSO Act. 2. The first bail application was rejected by order dated 02.03.2026 passed in MCRC No. 1654 of 2026. ALLENA ANNAJEE RAO Digitally signed by ALLENA ANNAJEE RAO Date: 2026.08.25 17:12:09 +0530 2 3. As per the prosecution case, on 18.12.2025, mother of victim lodged a report stating that the applicant knowing that her daughter was minor, allured her and established physical relations twice with the minor daughter on 21.10.2025 and 25.10.2025 by giving false assurance of marriage and also threatened her daughter by calling her that he will make her photo and video viral. Based on this, offence has been registered against the present applicant. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the mother of victim has been examined on 08.05.2026 and in her court statement, she has not supported the case of prosecution, therefore, she has been declared hostile. Similarly the father of victim has also turned hostile to the prosecution case. He further submits that the doctor (P.W.3) who examined the victim has not found any external or internal injuries. Therefore, there has been changing circumstances in this case after rejection of first bail application. There are also no criminal antecedents reported against the applicant. He submits that till date out of total 11 witnesses, only 4 have been examined; applicant is in jail since 19.12.2025 and there is no immediate possibility of disposal of case, therefore, considering all these aspects, the applicant deserves to be released on bail at this stage. 5. Per contra, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application and submits that at the time of incident, the victim was minor and in her court statement, the victim has supported the prosecution case. 6. The Victim appearing in person before the Court has expressed “no- objection” to grant bail. 7. It appears that there are changing circumstances in this case as the parents of victim and doctor have been examined before the trial Court after rejecting the first bail application and they have not supported the case of prosecution. 3 8. Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and the court statements of victim, her parents and the doctor as also the fact that the trial is yet to take time and looking to the changing circumstances and the long custody of the applicant, without observing anything on merits of the case, I am inclined to release the applicant on regular bail. 9. Accordingly, this second bail application is allowed and the applicant is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing a bond in sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the said Court as and when directed in that behalf. Cc as per rules. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Rao