1 CGHC010199692026 2026:CGHC:41350 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 4822 of 2026 1 - Rajkumar Ghritlahre S/o Mr Lahaku Ghritlahre Aged About 25 Years R/o Semeriya, Police Station- Nandghat, District- Bemetara, Chhattisgarh --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Saja, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) For Applicant : Shri Yash Karan Singh, Advocate. For Respondent/ State : Shri Vivek Sharma, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 23.09.2026 1. This is the second bail application of the applicant. The first bail application of the applicant was dismissed for non-prosecution on 27.4.2026 in M.Cr.C. No. 3008 of 2026. The applicant has preferred this Second Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been NIRMALA RAO 2 arrested in connection with Crime No.2/2026 registered at Police Station Saja, District Bemetara (C.G.) for the offence under Sections 137(2), 64, 64(2), 65(1) & 3(5) of BNS and Section 4(2) & 6 of the POCSO Act. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 31.12.2025, the brother of the victim's father informed the police that his daughter, who was residing with them, had left the house. Despite making efforts, they could not find her. Accordingly, an FIR was initially registered by the police against an unknown person. During the course of investigation, it was found that the victim and the applicant, who were in a relationship, had travelled together to an outskirt location. Hence, the FIR was registered against the present applicant, and he was arrested in connection with the aforementioned crime. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the victim and her mother have already been examined and have not supported the case of the prosecution. It is contended that the applicant has been in jail since 9.1.2026, has been falsely implicated in the case, and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time. Learned counsel for the applicant has invited the attention of this Court to paragraph 15, wherein the victim has stated that the applicant did not commit any offence as alleged. Therefore, he prays that the instant bail application may kindly be allowed. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel would submit that the victim, who has been examined as PW-1, has categorically stated in paragraph 5 that she was taken away by the present applicant to Puna, where they stayed for two days at the house of the applicant's 3 sister, where she was sexually assaulted. Thereafter, she was taken to village Semariya (Nandghat), where they stayed for three days and she was again sexually assaulted. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. The victim appeared along with her father and raised serious objection to grant of bail to the applicant. 7. It is a well-settled principle of law that a mini-trial is not permissible while considering a bail application. The appreciation of evidence of a witness cannot be undertaken at this stage, and it is for the learned trial Court to consider the evidence. As the victim has made serious allegations of sexual assault in her evidence and her age on the date of the incident was 13 years and 9 months, I am not inclined to grant bail to the applicant. 8. Accordingly, the second bail application of the applicant is rejected. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi