1 2026:CGHC:750 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 10104 of 2025 Raju Gupta @ Laddu S/o Late Dwarika Prasad Gupta Aged About 29 Years R/o Village- Navadih, Police Outpost- Trikunda, P.S. Ramanujganj, Dist.- Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G). ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh through the S.H.O. Police Station- Odgi, District Surajpur C.G. ... Respondent For the applicant : Ms. Deblina Maity, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Govt. Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Order on Board 06.01.2026 1. This is second bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of bail to the applicant in Crime No. 12 of 2025 registered at Police Station Odgi, District Surajpur (CG) for the offences under Sections 61, 70(2), 87, 137(2), 3(5) of BNS and Sections 4 & 6 of the POCSO Act. 2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 15.04.2025, father of the victim lodged a written complaint stating that on 13.04.2025 the victim was going to local market and for that she was standing near the road side. At that time, the applicant along with co-accused namely Abrar Ansari stopped the car and given lift to the victim. Thereafter, they took the victim to Kudargarh fare and while returning near Baijnath chowk the applicant and co-accused have ALLENA ANNAJEE RAO Digitally signed by ALLENA ANNAJEE RAO Date: 2026.01.07 13:50:54 +0530 2 committed forcible sexual intercourse with her, thereby the offence has been committed. 3. The first bail application has been dismissed on merits by order dated 21.08.2025 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 6117 of 2025. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case and prosecutrix herself is indulged in roping the innocent persons in false cases. She further submits that although the prosecutrix is shown to be minor aged about 17 years, yet the evidence of correct age has not been proved. She also submits that even the medical report does not show any definite opinion about the sexual intercourse. She submits that the applicant is in jail since 18.04.2025 and there is no immediate possibility of disposal of case, therefore, he may be enlarged on bail, at this stage. 5. Per contra, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the victim has been examined before the trial Court and she has supported the prosecution case. 6. The victim along with her father has appeared through VC from the concerned DLSA and objected to bail. 7. Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and considering the material on record, I do not find any changing circumstances after rejection of the first bail. Hence, I am not inclined to release the applicant on regular bail. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Rao