Dismissed

Raj Rishi Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC15 Sept 2026MCRC/8591/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order rejects the third bail application of Raj Rishi Singh in a sexual assault case under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. Despite the victim having been examined in court and alleging a prior quarrel, the court found no substantial change in circumstances given her supportive examination and prior Supreme Court dismissal of an SLP.

What did the court decide?

The third bail application of the applicant is rejected; the order directs the office to send a certified copy to the trial court.

Raj Rishi Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Bail and Remand | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

CGHC010357132026 2026:CGHC:40355

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

MCRC No. 8591 of 2026

¶6

KUNAL DEWANGAN

¶7

Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN

¶8

Raj Rishi Singh S/o Nand Kishore Singh Aged About 33 Years R/o Devri Khurd, Near Sat Beheniya Mandir Police Station Torwa, Tehsil- Bilaspur District- Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶9

... Applicant(s)

¶10

versus

¶11

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

¶12

... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Rajeev Kumar Dubey, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Monika Thakur, Panel Lawyer.

¶13

Hon'ble Shri Rakesh Mohan Pandey, Judge

¶14

Order on Board

¶15

16.09.2026

¶16

This is the Third Bail Application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant, who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 138/2025 registered at Police Station Torwa, District Bilaspur (C.G.), for the offences punishable under Sections 64(1), 70(1), 351(2), 115(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

¶17

The first and second bail applications of the applicant, Raj Rishi Singh, have already been rejected by a Co-ordinate Bench of this

¶18

¶19

Court in MCRC No. 5096/2025 vide order dated 02.07.2025 and in MCRC No. 7233/2026 vide order dated 07.08.2026, respectively, on merits. Hence, the present third Bail Application.

¶20

The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 31.03.2025 at about 7:00 p.m., the applicant allegedly called the victim to his house on the pretext of discussing a marriage proposal and introducing her to his family members. It is alleged that after taking the victim to his house, the applicant closed the door, gagged and threatened her and thereafter forcibly established physical relations with her without her consent. It is further alleged that co-accused Surendra Kumar Singh, the uncle of the applicant, was also present at the house and participated in the alleged incident. On hearing the cries of the victim, nearby persons allegedly arrived and rescued her, whereafter the aforesaid offence was registered against the applicant and co-accused.

¶21

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the circumstances have substantially changed as the victim has already been examined before the learned trial Court as PW-01. He further submits that the victim has not supported the prosecution case and has stated that her earlier allegations were made due to annoyance arising out of a quarrel with the applicant. He also submits that the co-accused Surendra Kumar Singh has already been granted bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court and that the applicant is in custody since 02.04.2025. The charge-sheet has already been filed and the trial is likely to take considerable time. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail on the ground of changed circumstances and parity.

¶22

¶23

On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bail and submits that the first bail application of the applicant was rejected on merits, against which the applicant preferred SLP (Crl.) No. 55181/2025 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which was dismissed vide order dated 25.02.2026. The second bail application was also rejected by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. She further submits that the victim, though examined before the learned trial Court, has supported the prosecution case in her examination-in-chief and there is no substantial change in circumstances warranting reconsideration of the prayer for bail.

¶24

I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary.

¶25

Considering the nature and gravity of the allegations, the specific role attributed to the applicant, the fact that the first bail application was rejected on merits, the dismissal of the SLP preferred before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and rejection of the second bail application, coupled with the fact that the victim, who has now been examined before the learned trial Court, has supported the prosecution case in her examination-in-chief, this Court finds no substantial change in circumstances warranting reconsideration of the prayer for bail. At the stage of considering bail, a Court cannot test the reliability or credibility of a prosecution witness, as such evaluation is strictly reserved for the final trial. Hence, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the applicant

¶26

Accordingly, the third bail application of applicant – Raj Rishi Singh, involved in Crime No. 138/2025 registered at Police Station

¶27

¶28

Torwa, District Bilaspur (C.G.), for the offences punishable under Sections 64(1), 70(1), 351(2), 115(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, is rejected .

¶29

Office is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith.

¶30

Sd/(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶31

Kunal

Raj Rishi Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Rishi Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases