1 CGHC010339882026 2026:CGHC:40169 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 8569 of 2026  Kashiram Jangde S/o Suraaj Jangde, Aged About 28 Years (Surraj Wrongly Mentioned In The Order Dated 17-06-2026), R/o Village Dhamutola Police Station Gaindatola, District Rajnandgaon, C. G. ... Applicant versus  State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon C. G. ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Keshav Dewangan, Advocate For Non-applicant : Ms. Ankita Shukla, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order On Board 15.09.2026 1) The applicant has preferred this Second Bail Application under Section 483 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No.23/2026, registered by Police Station Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 64(2)(K) and 3(5) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2) The prosecution story in brief is that on 13.01.2026 at about 5.00 Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2026.09.16 14:36:06 +0530 2 p.m. the complainant’s sister and Kanshiram Jangade went to Madai Mela where they consumed liquor. Kanshiram Jangade sexually assaulted her with the help of co-accused. Thereafter, the complainant lodged FIR for the offence punishable under section 64(2) (k) and 3(5) of B.N.S. against the present applicant and other accused person. 3) Learned counsel for the applicant submits that earlier bail application i.e. MCRC/5261/2026 preferred by the applicant was rejected vide order dated 17.06.2026 and learned Trial Court was directed to conclude the trial expeditiously. He further submits that evidence of the prosecutrix has been adduced but at the same time, only 03 witnesses out of total 19 witnesses have been examined. He also submits that the applicant is in jail since 15.01.2026 and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion, therefore, he prays for grant of bail. 4) On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application and submits that prosecutrix in evidence has stated that present applicant committed rape on her and the first bail application preferred by the applicant has already been rejected and there is no substantial change in circumstances. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail and the application deserves to be rejected. 5) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 3 6) It is an admitted fact that the evidence adduced before the learned Trial Court cannot be re-appreciated at the stage of entertaining an application for grant of bail. Considering the fact and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of offence levelled against the applicant and the fact that earlier bail application preferred by the applicant has been rejected on merits vide order dated 17.06.2026, this Court is not inclined to extend the benefit of bail to the applicant at this stage. 7) Accordingly, the bail application of applicant is rejected. 8) Needless to say, the Trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed with and conclude the trial expeditiously 9) 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 A j i n k y a