1 2026:CGHC:8720 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 1337 of 2026 P. Nitish Rao S/o Shrinivas Rao Aged About 35 Years Resident Of Radhe A- 21, Krishna Nagar Colony, Bhatapara, Police Station Bhatapara City, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Station House Officer, Police Of Police Station Bhatapara City, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Respondent (Cause-title is taken from CIS) For Applicant : Mr. Anil Ku. Gulati, Adv. For Respondent/State : Ms. Richa Pandey, P.L. For Objector : Mr. Sanskar Bajpai, Adv. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order On Board 18/02/2026 1. The victim and her parents appeared in person and recorded ‘objection’ in granting bail to the Applicant. 2. The applicant has preferred this 2nd bail application under Section 483 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita Act 2023 for grant of regular bail as he is arrested in connection with crime No. 248/2025, registered at Police Station – Bhatapara, District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) for offence punishable under Sections 74, 75(2) of BNS and Section 8 of the POCSO Act, 2012. SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Digitally signed by SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Date: 2026.02.19 10:41:28 +0530 2 3. First bail of the applicant was dismissed vide order dated 23.07.2025 passed in MCRC No.5557/2025. 4. The prosecution's case, in short, is that on 08.04.2025, the applicant induced the minor victim, called her near the guard room and started molesting her with wrong intentions. Based on above, offence has been registered against the applicant and he was arrested on 15.04.2025. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the crime in question. He further submits that the trial is commenced, the applicant is in jail since 15.04.2025, out of 19 prosecution witnesses only 4 have been examined till date and the trial is likely to take time to be finalized, therefore, it is prayed that the applicant may be enlarged on bail. 6. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Objector opposes the bail application. The State Counsel also opposes the bail application and submits that at the time of incident, the victim was minor and she supported the case of prosecution, therefore, looking to the nature of offence, the applicant may not be released on bail. 7. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, evidence collected by the prosecution against the applicant and looking to the statements of victim and her parents, without commenting on merits of the case, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail. 9. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected. 10. However, considering the applicant's detention period, the Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and ensure it is concluded as early as possible, preferably within 4 months from receipt of this order. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Shubham