1 CGHC010351442026 2026:CGHC:41205 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 8437 of 2026 1 - Vinay Das Manikpuri S/o Pawan Das Manikpuri, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Dabra Para North Bhilai 03, Police Station Purani Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.). ... Applicant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Of Police Station Purani Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.). ... Respondent(s) For Applicant : Mr. Ramsajiwan, Adv. For Respondent/State : Ms. Deepa Singh, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board 22 / 09 / 2026 1. The accused/applicant has moved this Second bail application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 for releasing him on regular bail during trial in connection with Crime No. 466/2025 registered at Police Station – Purani Bhilai, District – Durg (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 376(2)(n) of IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act. 2. The first bail application of the applicant was dismissed on merits by this Court vide order dated 10.03.2026 passed in MCRC No. 1877/2026. 3. As per the prosecution’s case, on 22.11.2025, victim/complainant lodged a written complaint to the effect that SOURABH PATEL Digitally signed by SOURABH PATEL Date: 2026.09.22 16:59:16 +0530 2 on 25.03.2024, the accused/applicant called her to his house, then she went to his house for a talk in the night at about 12:00 am, the applicant took her to his room and forcibly had physical relations with her, after the he had physical relations with her several times by luring her for marriage due to which she became pregnant. In the eighth month, on 10.11.2025, she gave birth to a girl child at home, and as the girl’s health was not good, she was taken to the hospital and kept in ICU. The applicant now refuses to marry her and claims the child is not his. Based on this, offence has been registered against the present applicant. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that there was a delay in lodging the FIR. After rejection of the first bail application, the victim has been examined and she has refused to undergo DNA test, which would have conclusively established the paternity. The applicant is in jail since 23.11.2025 and there is no likelihood of conclusion of trial in the near future; therefore, the applicant may be enlarged on bail. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application and submits that the victim is a minor girl, and there is sufficient material against the applicant. The applicant lured the minor girl and established physical relations several times, due to which the victim got pregnant and gave birth to a girl child, who died in the hospital. Further, out of total 11 witnesses, only the victim has been examined and she has supported the case of the prosecution; therefore, at this stage, the applicant may not be enlarged on bail. 6. The father of the victim appeared through V.C. from the concerned DLSA and raised objection to grant of bail to the applicant. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 3 8. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the material available on record, the evidence collected by the prosecution against the applicant, the gravity of the offence, and also considering that out of total 11 witnesses only the victim has been examined, this Court is of the considered view that no such change in circumstances warranting grant of bail is made out. Accordingly, the bail application filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023, is rejected. 9. However, looking to the custody period of the applicant, the trial Court is directed to expedite the trial as early as possible. 10. Office is directed to sent a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge $ourabh