2026:CGHC:22704 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 4474 of 2026 Yugal Kishore Dinkar @ Anurag S/o Rakesh Kumar Dinkar Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Kachhar, Police Station Masturi, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) Presently Residing At Barihatola, Police Station Marwahi , District- Gaurela-

Pendra Marwahi (C.G.)

... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Marwahi, District- Gaurela- Pendra Marwahi (C.G.)

... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. C.P. Lahrey, Advocate For State /Respondent :

Mr. Vikhyat Arora, Panel Lawyer (Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal)

Order on Board

13/05/2026

1. This is Third bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 for grant of regular bail to applicant, who has been arrested on 20/04/2025 in connection with Crime No. 47/2025 Registered at Police Station Marwahi, District Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH

ASHUTOSHMISHRA

MISHRA Date:

2026.05.15

+0530

(C.G.) for the offence under Sections 64 (1), 64 (2)(f), 64(2)(m) and 351 (2) of BNS and Section 06 of POCSO Act.

2. Earlier the first bail application of the applicant has been dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 10.10.2025 by this Court in MCRC No. 7287/2025. Thereafter, the second bail application of the applicant has also been dismissed as not pressed on 02/01/2026 by this Court in MCRC No. 10182/2025.

3. The case of the prosecution is that on 14/04/2025 daughter of the complainant did vomiting on account of which she was being taken to hospital and during treatment while performing sonography test it was found that the victim was pregnant. On being enquired by the complainant, the victim disclosed that the applicant has sexually assaulted her in the month of January, 2025. Thereafter, a written complaint was lodged by the victim before the police station Marvahi upon which a Crime No.47 of 2025 was registered against the applicant. During the investigation, the present applicant was arrested on

20/04/2025.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that though the case was fixed for final hearing, however, the prosecution has submitted the DNA report before the trial Court and now the trial of the case has been reopened and the doctor has been recalled. He would further submit that under the circumstances there is every likelihood of delay in trial and the applicant is in jail since 20/04/2025, therefore, the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for grant of bail. He would further submit that the applicant is facing trial for serious and grave offences. Though the trial had substantially concluded, the prosecution has recalled the medical expert/doctor for proving and explaining the DNA report, which constitutes material scientific evidence having direct bearing on the adjudication of the case. It is further submitted that merely because substantial evidence has already been recorded, the applicant does not acquire any indefeasible right to be enlarged on bail, particularly when crucial prosecution evidence is yet to be formally brought on record and tested before the Court. Accordingly, the present bail application deserves to be rejected.

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

7. Considering the entire facts & circumstances of the case more particularly the fact that that the prosecution has recalled the medical expert for proving the DNA report, which is a material piece of scientific evidence directly relevant to the controversy involved. Merely because substantial part of the trial stands concluded cannot by itself be a ground for grant of bail when important evidence having material bearing on the merits of the prosecution case remains to be formally proved and considered. At this stage, this Court is not required to undertake a detailed appreciation of the evidentiary value of the DNA report; ho