RAVINDRA KHAKHA vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

CGHC010335022026 2026:CGHC:38804

NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No. 8046 of 2026
Ravindra Khakha S/o Hirasai, Aged About 45 Years Caste - Uraon, R/o -
Village - Parmeshwarpur, P. S. - Ramanujnagar, Distt. - Surajpur (C.G.)
... Applicant
versus
State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Ramanujnagar,
District - Surajpur (C.G.)
... Non-Applicant
For Applicant : Mr. Akhtar Hussain, Advocate.
For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Monika Thakur, Panel Lawyer.
Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Order on Board
02.09.2026
1. This is the second bail application filed under Section 483 of the
BNSS for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been
arrested in connection with Crime No. 64/2026 registered at Police
Station – Ramanujnagar, District - Surajpur (C.G.) for the offence
punishable under Sections 332(B), 351(2) and 64(1) of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).
2. The earlier bail application of the applicant being MCRC No. 4740
RAHUL
DEWANGAN
of 2026 was rejected by this Court vide order dated 09.07.2026 on
Digitally
signed by
RAHUL
DEWANGAN
merits.

2
3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the victim lodged a
report at the concerned Police Station alleging that on 25.02.2026,
at about 09:30 a.m., the present applicant entered her house and
committed a sexual offence against her by threatening her with a
knife and thereby putting her in fear of being killed. On the basis of
the said report, the concerned police registered the offence against
the applicant and, after completion of the investigation, arrested him
in connection with the aforesaid crime. Hence, the present bail
application.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present
application is the second bail application and that the earlier bail
application preferred by the applicant, being MCRC No. 4740 of
2026, was rejected on merits by this Court vide order dated
09.07.2026. It is further submitted that the applicant is innocent and
has neither committed nor participated in any act constituting the
alleged offences and has been falsely implicated in the present
case. He also submits that the wife of the applicant had submitted a
written complaint and an application under the RTI Act before the
concerned authorities seeking the relevant documents pertaining to
the complaint lodged by the victim, and the documents so obtained
have been placed on record. It is further submitted that, according
to the applicant’s wife, there was an affair between the victim and
the applicant and the victim is herself a married woman, on the
alleged date of incident, when the applicant’s wife allegedly found
the victim with the applicant, the victim lodged a false complaint
against him. He further submits that the charge-sheet has already

3
been filed and, upon perusal of the material collected during
investigation, there is no specific material prima facie establishing
the ingredients of the alleged offences against the applicant. It is
also submitted that the applicant’s wife had made a written
complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Surajpur, on 17.03.2026
seeking the written complaint and CCTV footage of Police Station
Ramanujnagar dated 25.02.2026, but no action has been taken
thereon. It is further submitted that the applicant is in jail since
14.03.2026, the investigation is complete and the charge-sheet has
been filed, and as the trial is likely to take considerable time, his
continued incarceration would cause undue hardship and adversely
affect his future. Hence, he prays that the applicant may kindly be
enlarged on bail.
5. On the other hand, the learned State Counsel opposed the second
bail application and submitted that the present application is the
second bail application preferred by the applicant and that his
earlier bail application, being MCRC No. 4740 of 2026, was
rejected on merits by this Court vide order dated 09.07.2026. It is
further submitted that there is no substantial change in
circumstances warranting reconsideration of the applicant’s prayer
for bail. She further submits that, as per the prosecution case, the
applicant entered the house of the victim on 25.02.2026 at about
09:30 a.m. and committed a sexual offence against her by
threatening her with a knife and putting her under fear of being
killed. It is further submitted that the allegations are serious in
nature and are supported by the material collected during

4
investigation. Hence, considering the seriousness of the allegations
and absence of any substantial change in circumstances, she prays
for rejection of the bail application.
6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused
the case diary.
7. From perusal of the records, it transpires that the present
application is the second bail application preferred by the applicant
and that his earlier bail application, being MCRC No. 4740 of 2026,
was rejected on merits by this Court vide order dated 09.07.2026. It
further transpires that there is no substantial change in
circumstances after rejection of the earlier bail application so as to
warrant reconsideration of the applicant’s prayer for bail. As per the
prosecution case, on 25.02.2026 at about 09:30 a.m., the applicant
entered the house of the victim and allegedly committed a sexual
offence against her by threatening her with a knife and putting her
under fear of being killed. The allegations against the applicant are
serious in nature and the defence taken by the applicant, including
the alleged affair between the parties and the complaint made by
his wife, involves disputed questions of fact which cannot be
examined or adjudicated upon at this stage. Though the applicant is
in jail since 14.03.2026 and the charge-sheet has already been
filed, the same, by itself, does not constitute a change in
circumstances, particularly when the earlier bail application was
rejected on merits. Considering the nature and gravity of the
allegations, the manner in which the alleged offence was

5
committed, the material collected during investigation and the
absence of any substantial change in circumstances since rejection
of the earlier bail application, this Court does not find it to be a fit
case for grant of second bail. Hence, I am not inclined to grant
second bail to the applicant.
8. Accordingly, the second bail application of the applicant – Ravindra
Khakha, involved in Crime No. 64/2026 registered at Police Station
– Ramanujnagar, District - Surajpur (C.G.) for the offence
punishable under Sections 332(B), 351(2) and 64(1) of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, is rejected.
9. However, this Court hopes and trusts that the trial Court shall make
an earnest endeavour to conclude the trial as expeditiously as
possible within a period of four months from the receipt of a
certified copy of this order in accordance with law, if there is no
legal impediment.
10. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial
Court concerned for necessary information and compliance
forthwith.
Sd/-
(Ramesh Sinha)
Chief Justice
Rahul Dewangan