1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 2638 of 2026 1 - Maniram Kurrey S/o Chotan Lal Kurrey Aged About 30 Years R/o Near Kanhera Pond, P.S. Urla, District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Officer In Charge Police Station Urla, District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Prahalad Panda, Adv. For Respondent/State : Mr. Aman Tamrakar, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board 13 / 04 / 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. 129/2025 registered at Police Station – Urla, District – Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 64, 65(2) of BNS and Section 4(2) of POCSO Act. 2. The first bail application of the applicant had been dismissed on merit on 18.11.2025 in MCRC No. 8433/2025. 3. As per the prosecution’s case, on 26.06.2025, a written complaint was lodged by the mother of the victim to the effect HEERA LAL SAHU Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2026.04.13 18:23:13 +0530 2 that on the morning of 25.06.2025, she was at work and her daughter, aged about 13 years and 7 months, had been mentally challenged since childhood and was at home. The complainant’s son, Kesh Lal Nishad, told her when she returned home in the evening that the accused/applicant had committed a wrong with her daughter/victim. Based on this, offence has been registered against the applicant. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that after dismissal of the first bail application, the FSL report has been received, and the doctor who examined the victim has been examined before the trial Court. The FSL report is negative, and as per the doctor’s statement and medical report, no injury was found on the body of the victim, the hymen was intact, and no sign of vaginal penetration was seen. The applicant is in jail since 26.06.2025, and only 3 witnesses out of 22 listed witnesses have been examined to date. There is no likelihood of his case being decided in the near future; therefore, the present applicant may be released on bail. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application and submits that the applicant committed a heinous offence with a minor girl aged about 13 to 14 years, who is mentally challenged girl, and some important witnesses have still remained to be examined; therefore, looking to the gravity of the offence, at this stage, he is not entitled to enlarge on bail. 3 6. On 10.04.2026, the mother and 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. 8. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, particularly looking to the material available on record, the evidence collected by the prosecution against the applicant and also looking to the fact that after dismissal of the first bail application of the applicant, the change of circumstances stated by the counsel for the applicant is not to the effect to grant bail to the applicant, therefore, at this stage, without commenting on merits of the case, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail. 9. Accordingly, the bail application filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023, is rejected. 10.However, considering the fact that the applicant is in jail since 26.06.2025, and only 3 witnesses out of 22 witnesses have been examined till date, the concerned trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and to ensure that the trial is concluded as expeditiously as possible. 11.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 H.L. Sahu