1 CGHC010370112026 2026:CGHC:41494 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 8962 of 2026 1 - Bhim Chaturvedi S/o Shri Bhagwat Chaturvedi Aged About 18 Years R/o Village Maharjpur, P.S. Dhamdha, Distt- Durg (C.G.) ...Applicant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, (S.H.O.) P.S. Gandai, Distt- Khairagarh- Chhuikhadan- Gandai (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Ms. Sareena Khan, Advocate For Non-applicant : Mr. Saurabh Sahu, PL Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order On Board 24.09.2026 1) This is the second bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for grant of regular ball to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No.376/2025 registered at Police Station Gandai, District Khairagarh- Chhuikhadan-Gandai (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 137 (2), 96, 65 (1) of of Bhartiya Nyay Samhita, 2023 (for short, the BNS) and Sections 04, 06 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short, the POCSO Act). Earlier first bail application bearing MCRC No.4055 of 2026 was rejected on merits 2 vide order dated 24.06.2026. 2) As per the prosecution case, the present applicant is alleged to have established a sexual relationship with the prosecutrix. In respect of said act, the father of the prosecutrix lodged a report at Police Station Gandai, District Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan-Gandai (C.G.). Based on said report, the offence under the aforesaid sections was registered against the present applicant. Hence, the present bail application. 3) Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent, has not committed any offence, and has falsely been implicated in the present case. She further submits that the prosecutrix has been examined before the concerned trial Court and her statement is not reliable. She also submits that no offence is made out against the applicant. It is further submitted that the applicant is in jail since 28.10.2025, the trial is in progress, and its conclusion may take some time. On these premises, she prays for grant of regular bail to the applicant. 4) On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that, as per the prosecution case, the present applicant has committed sexual assault against the minor victim. He further submits that the same is evident from the statement of the victim (P.W.4) and the statement of the father of the victim (P.W.1), wherein they have clearly stated that the applicant committed the alleged offence. Therefore, the bail application deserves to be rejected. 5) I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6) Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the fact that the first bail application bearing MCRC No.4055 of 2026 3 was rejected on merits vide order dated 24.06.2026, wherein the statements of the victim and her parents were taken into consideration, and further considering that one of the two victims has supported the case of the prosecution, that the ages of the victims were 15 years and 14 years, respectively, and there are serious allegations of sexual assault against the present applicant, this Court is of the opinion that no change in circumstances has been brought on record so as to take a different view from the one taken while rejecting the earlier bail application. Considering the nature and gravity of the allegations and the material available on record, I am not inclined to grant bail to the present applicant. Accordingly, the application filed under Section 483 of the B.N.S.S. is rejected. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Rekha