1 2026:CGHC:16368 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 2819 of 2026 1 - Arun Kashyap S/o Shri Shrawan Kashyap Aged About 21 Years R/o Village- Kanhaiband Fatak Para Chouki, Naila, P.S. Janjgir, District- Janjgir-Champa Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through S.H.O. P.S. Janjgir, District- Janjgir-Champa Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Rahil Arun Kochar, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Ms. Sunita Manikpuri, G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board 09 / 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. 1015/2025 registered at Police Station – Janjgir, District – Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 64(1) of BNS and 4(2) of POCSO Act. 2. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected on merits by this Court vide order dated 16.06.2025 in MCRC No. 3143/2025. SOURABH PATEL Digitally signed by SOURABH PATEL Date: 2026.04.09 17:25:20 +0530 2 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 30.12.2024, the victim lodged a written complaint alleging that on 29.12.2024 at about 6;00 pm, she went to the Naila Road overbridge. At about 8:00 Pm, while she was conversing with her family members, a boy arrived at the scene and forcibly took her under the canal bridge, crossing the railway line. He threatened to kill, switched off her mobile phone, and committed forcible sexual intercourse. Upon returning from the spot, she encountered Harnish and Mayank, informed them about the sexual assault. She then returned home and informed her family members about the incident. Based on the written complaint, the police has arrested the applicant and has registered the case for the offences as mentioned above. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He next submits that at the time of the first bail application, out of a total 15 witnesses, 2 had been examined, and there is a clear change in circumstances in that after rejection of the first bail application, only 4 more witnesses have been examined till date, despite this Court's direction to expedite the trial. He further submits that the applicant has no criminal antecedents and he is in jail since 31.12.2024, the trial is likely to considerable time to conclude, therefore, the applicant may be released on bail. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposed the bail application and submits that at the time of incident, the victim was a minor, and out of 15 witnesses, only 06 have been 3 examined till date and some important witnesses are yet to be examined, therefore, at this stage, the applicant may not be enlarged on bail. 6. Despite service of notice, the victim is not appeared before this Court today. 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 and the evidence against the applicant, and further considering the fact that there is no such change in circumstances warranting grant of bail, I do not find it appropriate to release the applicant on bail. 9. Accordingly, the bail application filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 is rejected. However, considering the fact that the applicant is in jail since 31.12.2024. It is an exceptional case, therefore, concerned trial Court is directed to expedite the trial as early as possible preferably within a period of 05 months. 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 Sourabh P.