1 CGHC010335022026 2026:CGHC:38804 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 8046 of 2026 Ravindra Khakha S/o Hirasai, Aged About 45 Years Caste - Uraon, R/o - Village - Parmeshwarpur, P. S. - Ramanujnagar, Distt. - Surajpur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Ramanujnagar, District - Surajpur (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Akhtar Hussain, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Monika Thakur, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 02.09.2026 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. 64/2026 registered at Police Station – Ramanujnagar, District - Surajpur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 332(B), 351(2) and 64(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). 2. The earlier bail application of the applicant being MCRC No. 4740 of 2026 was rejected by this Court vide order dated 09.07.2026 on merits. RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the victim lodged a report at the concerned Police Station alleging that on 25.02.2026, at about 09:30 a.m., the present applicant entered her house and committed a sexual offence against her by threatening her with a knife and thereby putting her in fear of being killed. On the basis of the said report, the concerned police registered the offence against the applicant and, after completion of the investigation, arrested him in connection with the aforesaid crime. Hence, the present bail application. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present application is the second bail application and that the earlier bail application preferred by the applicant, being MCRC No. 4740 of 2026, was rejected on merits by this Court vide order dated 09.07.2026. It is further submitted that the applicant is innocent and has neither committed nor participated in any act constituting the alleged offences and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He also submits that the wife of the applicant had submitted a written complaint and an application under the RTI Act before the concerned authorities seeking the relevant documents pertaining to the complaint lodged by the victim, and the documents so obtained have been placed on record. It is further submitted that, according to the applicant’s wife, there was an affair between the victim and the applicant and the victim is herself a married woman, on the alleged date of incident, when the applicant’s wife allegedly found the victim with the applicant, the victim lodged a false complaint against him. He further submits that the charge-sheet has already 3 been filed and, upon perusal of the material collected during investigation, there is no specific material prima facie establishing the ingredients of the alleged offences against the applicant. It is also submitted that the applicant’s wife had made a written complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Surajpur, on 17.03.2026 seeking the written complaint and CCTV footage of Police Station Ramanujnagar dated 25.02.2026, but no action has been taken thereon. It is further submitted that the applicant is in jail since 14.03.2026, the investigation is complete and the charge-sheet has been filed, and as the trial is likely to take considerable time, his continued incarceration would cause undue hardship and adversely affect his future. Hence, he prays that the applicant may kindly be enlarged on bail. 5. On the other hand, the learned State Counsel opposed the second bail application and submitted that the present application is the second bail application preferred by the applicant and that his earlier bail application, being MCRC No. 4740 of 2026, was rejected on merits by this Court vide order dated 09.07.2026. It is further submitted that there is no substantial change in circumstances warranting reconsideration of the applicant’s prayer for bail. She further submits that, as per the prosecution case, the applicant entered the house of the victim on 25.02.2026 at about 09:30 a.m. and committed a sexual offence against her by threatening her with a knife and putting her under fear of being killed. It is further submitted that the allegations are serious in nature and are supported by the material collected during 4 investigation. Hence, considering the seriousness of the allegations and absence of any substantial change in circumstances, she prays for rejection of the bail application. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. From perusal of the records, it transpires that the present application is the second bail application preferred by the applicant and that his earlier bail application, being MCRC No. 4740 of 2026, was rejected on merits by this Court vide order dated 09.07.2026. It further transpires that there is no substantial change in circumstances after rejection of the earlier bail application so as to warrant reconsideration of the applicant’s prayer for bail. As per the prosecution case, on 25.02.2026 at about 09:30 a.m., the applicant entered the house of the victim and allegedly committed a sexual offence against her by threatening her with a knife and putting her under fear of being killed. The allegations against the applicant are serious in nature and the defence taken by the applicant, including the alleged affair between the parties and the complaint made by his wife, involves disputed questions of fact which cannot be examined or adjudicated upon at this stage. Though the applicant is in jail since 14.03.2026 and the charge-sheet has already been filed, the same, by itself, does not constitute a change in circumstances, particularly when the earlier bail application was rejected on merits. Considering the nature and gravity of the allegations, the manner in which the alleged offence was 5 committed, the material collected during investigation and the absence of any substantial change in circumstances since rejection of the earlier bail application, 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. 8. Accordingly, the second bail application of the applicant – Ravindra Khakha, involved in Crime No. 64/2026 registered at Police Station – Ramanujnagar, District - Surajpur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 332(B), 351(2) and 64(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, is rejected. 9. However, this Court hopes and trusts that the trial Court shall make an earnest endeavour to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible within a period of four months from the receipt of a certified copy of this order in accordance with law, if there is no legal impediment. 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