NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 1706 of 2026

1 - Shivlal Paikra S/o Sukul Paikra Aged About 28 Years R/o Village- Khajuriyadih, Baheratoli, Thana Chando, Distt.- Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) (As Per Correct Details)

... applicant (s)

versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Chando, District- Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.)

... Respondent(s)

For applicant (s) : Mr. Sachin Nidhi, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikhyat Arora, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J.

Order on board

18.02.2026.

1. The present bail application is listed on default and the default pointed out by the Registry is waived.

2. This is the second bail application of the applicant. The first bail

17.09.2025 passed in MCRC No. 6941/2025. The applicant is claiming regular bail, who has been arrested on 24.12.2024 for the offence of Crime No. 49/2024 registered at Police Station- Chando, for the offence under Section 137 (B), 69, 64, 64 (2)(n) of BNS and Section 4 and 6 of POCSO Act (as per charge-sheet).

3. The case of the prosecution is that on 09.12.2024, the father of the victim lodge a report to the Police that his minor daughter is missing since 04.12.2024 and her whereabouts could not be traced out. The Police has registered the offence under Section 137 of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 and started investigation. During the investigation, on 13.12.2024, the wife of the applicant, left the victim on the way to her house and then she came back to her house and informed the Police about the incident. After recording statement of the victim, the other offence under Section 87, 351 (3) and 64(2) of BNS, 2023 and Section 5 (l) and 6 of the POCSO Act have been added. The applicant was arrested on 24.12.2024 and charge-

sheet has been filed.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the victim has been examined in the case and there are material omission and contradictions in the evidence, which makes the applicant entitled for bail. There is no sufficient evidence with respect to the age of the victim and the victim being a major girl having love affair with the applicant and she on her own will made physical relation with the applicant and therefore, no offence prima facie is made out against the applicant. The final conclusion of the trial will take its own time, therefore, the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

5. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes and would submit that therefore, there is no change in circumstances and he is not entitled for bail.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the application.

7. Considering the nature of offence and evidence available in the charge-

sheet, further considering that at the time when the first bail application of the applicant has been dismissed on merits on 17.09.2025, the victim has already been examined on 04.04.2025 as (PW/1), her maternal uncle has been examined as (PW/2) on 14.05.2025, her mother has been examined as (PW/3) on 14.05.2025 and only the teacher of the school have been examined after the rejection of the bail application i.e. on 08.10.2025 as PW/4, therefore, I do not find any change in circumstances particularly when the trial of the case is going on.

8. Accordingly, the Second bail application of the applicant Shivlal Paikra is rejection at the motion stage.

Sd/-

(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal)

Judge Sagrika

Digitally signed

SAGRIKA by SAGRIKA

AGRAWAL

AGRAWAL Date: 2026.02.18