1 CGHC010351102026 2026:CGHC:40351 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 8622 of 2026 Animesh Minj S/o Jokhu Minj, Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Bariyon (Parsapara) Police Outpost Bariyon, Police Station Rajpur, District Balrampur Ramanujganj (C.G.) (Father Name Of Applicant Wrongly Mentioned In Order Sheet Corret Father Name Is Jokhu Minj) ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station -Rajpur District -Balrampur- Ramanujganj (C.G.) ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Dr. Prachi Diwan, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Monika Thakur, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Rakesh Mohan Pandey, Judge Order on Board 16.09.2026 1. The applicant has preferred this Second Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, 'BNSS'), for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No.55/2026, registered at Police Station Rajpur, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 332(B), 64(1), 115(2) and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, 'BNS'). KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 2. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by a co- ordinate Bench of this Court in MCRC No.4476/2026 vide order dated 13.05.2026 on merits. Hence, this Second Bail Application has been preferred by the applicant. 3. The prosecution story, in brief, is that the victim, a widow residing alone in her house, lodged a written complaint on 12.03.2026 before the In-charge of Bariyon Outpost alleging that in the intervening night of 01.03.2026 and 02.03.2026 at about 1:00 A.M., the applicant/accused, who belongs to her village, broke the bricks of the wall of her house and trespassed into her house by scaling the wall. It is alleged that thereafter, the applicant committed forcible sexual intercourse with the victim. When she attempted to raise an alarm, the applicant allegedly pressed her mouth and neck, assaulted her by fists and kicks and threatened to kill her. On the basis of the said complaint, Crime No.55/2026 was registered against the applicant for the aforesaid offences. After investigation, charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the first bail application of the applicant was rejected by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in MCRC No.4476/2026 vide order dated 13.05.2026 on merits. She would further submit that the new ground raised in the present bail application is that after rejection of the first bail application, the victim has been examined before the learned trial Court and has not supported the case of the prosecution. It is further submitted that there is a land dispute between the parties. Learned counsel would also submit that out of 13 prosecution 3 witnesses, only one witness, i.e. the victim, has been examined so far and 12 witnesses are yet to be examined. Accordingly, she prays for grant of regular bail to the applicant. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bail and submits that the first bail application of the applicant was rejected on merits by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 13.05.2026. She would further submit that the allegation against the applicant is of forcibly entering the house of the widow victim during the night, committing forcible sexual intercourse with her, assaulting her and threatening her with dire consequences. It is further submitted that the mere examination of the victim and the manner in which she has deposed before the learned trial Court cannot, at this stage, be construed to mean that there is no prima facie material against the applicant. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary as well as the material available on record. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the offence alleged against the applicant and further considering that the first bail application of the applicant was rejected by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court on merits vide order dated 13.05.2026. Further, it is well settled in law that the evidence cannot be appreciated or meticulously examined while considering a bail application. Out of 13 prosecution witnesses, only one witness, i.e. the victim, has been examined so far and the mere fact that the victim has not supported the prosecution case in her 4 testimony cannot, by itself, lead to an inference that there is no prima facie case against the applicant. At this stage, the reliability or credibility of the testimony of the prosecution witness cannot be conclusively assessed, as such appreciation is a matter for trial. Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court does not find any good ground for interference in the present bail application. 8. Accordingly, the second bail application of applicant – Animesh Minj, involved in Crime No.55/2026, registered at Police Station Rajpur, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 332(B), 64(1), 115(2) and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, 'BNS'), is rejected. 9. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed with and conclude the trial expeditiously. 10. Office is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Kunal