Dismissed¶¶27

Rajesh Verma v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC1 Jul 2026MCRC/4413/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur; MCRC No. 4413 of 2026; decided 02/07/2026 by Justice Radhakishan Agrawal; Section 483 BNSS 2023; second regular bail application rejected; no substantial change in ground for bail; first bail application MCRC No.9565 of 2025 dismissed on merits 10.12.2025; allegations of physical relations on false promise of marriage, WhatsApp private photographs/videos, threats; 08 of 26 prosecution witnesses examined; applicant in custody since 06.11.2024.

What did the court decide?

The Court declined to grant bail, finding no substantial change in the ground for grant of bail to the applicant. ¶¶26

Rajesh Verma Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Bail and Remand | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

2026:CGHC:27139

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶5

MCRC No. 4413 of 2026

¶6

Rajesh Verma S/o Shri Duryodhan Verma Aged About 31 Years R/o Village Mohra, Police Station Suhela, Distt. Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.)

¶7

... Applicant

¶8

versus

¶9

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Suhela, Distt. Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.)

¶10

---- Respondent

¶11

(Cause title is taken from the CIS)

¶12

___________________________________________________________ For Applicant : Mr. Ravi Pandey, Advocate appears on behalf of Ms. Neeta Tulsani Thawani, Advocate For State-Respondent : Mr. Vivek Mishra, PL

¶13

Digitally signed by VASANT VASANT KUMAR KUMAR Date:2026.07.02 16:40:29 +0530

¶14

Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal

¶15

Order on Board

¶16

02/07/2026

¶17

This is second bail application filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant. The first bail application was dismissed on merits vide order dated 10.12.2025

¶18

¶19

in MCRC No.9565 of 2025.

¶20

The prosecution case, in brief, is that the applicant established physical relations with the victim on the false promise of marriage, uploaded her private photographs/videos on WhatsApp, and threatened her. On the basis of the report, the crime was registered and the applicant was arrested during investigation.

¶21

Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the applicant is an innocent and has been falsely implicated in the said case. He further contended that only 08 prosecution witnesses have been examined out of 26 prosecution witnesses, trial has not been concluded and the applicant is in jail since 06.11.2024 and the trial will take time for its conclusion, therefore, the applicant may be released on bail.

¶22

Learned State Counsel submits that this is second bail application of the applicant and there is no substantial change in the ground for grant of bail to the applicant.

¶23

Learned State counsel submits that notice issued to the victim/complainant has been served upon father of the victim, but no one appeared on her behalf.

¶24

I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶25

¶26

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and further considering that there is no substantial change in the ground for grant of bail to the applicant.

¶27