2026:CGHC:6872 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR KUNAL DEWANGAN MCRC No. 597 of 2026 Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN Dharam Lal Suryavanshi S/o Santosh Ratre Aged About 22 Years R/o Santosh Bada Jarhabhata, P.S. - Civil Line, District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s)

versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Koni District Bilaspur (C.G.)

... Non-applicant(s)

For Applicant : Mr. Arjit Tiwari, Advocate.

For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Nupur Trivedi, Panel Lawyer.

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice

Order on Board

06.02.2026

1. The applicant has preferred this Second Bail Application under Section 483 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 554/2024, registered at Police Station Koni District- Bilaspur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 70(1), 332, 351(2) of the BNS.

2. The earlier bail application of the applicant has already been rejected by this Court in MCRC No. 1774/2025, vide order dated

21.03.2025, on merits. Hence, the second bail application.

3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 10.12.2024, the victim/complainant lodged an FIR before the Police of Police Station Koni, District-Bilaspur against the accused persons with the averment that on 10.12.2024, the present applicant along with co- accused Devraj Verma came to the shop of the victim and purchased cigarette after that she closed the shop and go to bring water from house, the applicant along with co-accused entered into the house of the victim and committed rape upon her. Thereafter, the concerned Police has registered the aforesaid offence against the applicant along with co-accused.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the earlier bail application of the applicant was rejected on merits, however, the present second bail application is being pressed on new and subsequent grounds. He submits that the applicant has neither committed nor participated in any act constituting the alleged offences. It is further submitted that the victim is a major girl aged about 18 years and from the overall circumstances, it appears that she was a consenting party and no offence as alleged is made out. He further points out that as per the complaint, the alleged incident took place on 10.12.2024, whereas the FIR was lodged on 17.12.2024, i.e., after a delay of seven days, for which no plausible explanation has been offered. It is also submitted that there are material contradictions in the statements of the victim recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. He further submits that as per the medical examination report, no external or internal injuries were found on the body of the victim and the doctor has opined that there were no signs of recent sexual intercourse and no injuries indicating resistance, which makes the allegation of rape doubtful and raises a strong possibility of false implication. It is also submitted that the applicant has been in judicial custody since

18.12.2024.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant lastly submitted that the trial is already in progress, the statements of the victim’s mother and father have been recorded and the Investigating Officer has also been cross-examined. Out of 13 prosecution witnesses, statements of 6 witnesses have already been recorded. The FSL and MLC reports are negative and during trial, the victim has not identified the applicant. Since the trial is likely to take considerable time for conclusion, he prays that the applicant be released on bail.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application and submits that the first bail application of the applicant has already been rejected by this Court in MCRC No. 1774/2025, vide order dated 21.03.2025, on merits. Hence, she prays that the present bail application is liable to be rejected.

7. I h