Chattisgarh High Court
Tamid Khan @ Taimit Khan vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 18 February, 2026
1
2026:CGHC:8712
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No. 1509 of 2026
Tamid Khan @ Taimit Khan S/o Late Sahban Khan, Aged About 37 Years
R/o Ward No. 12, Jhanjhnagar, Salhewara, District- Khairagarh-
Chhuikhadan - Gandai, Chhattisgarh
... Applicant
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station
Salhewara, District - Khairagarh- Chhuikhadan - Gandai, Chhattisgarh
... Respondent
(Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Applicant : Mr. Pushpendra Singh Baghel, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Vinod Kumar Tekam, Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 18/02/2026
1. This is the third bail application of the applicant. The first bail application of the applicant has been dismissed on merits vide order VED dated 14.11.2024, passed by this court in MCRC No. 4684 of 2024. PRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by The second bail application of the applicant has been dismissed by VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2026.02.19 12:33:26 +0530 this court on 23.07.2025, passed in MCRC No. 3722 of 2025. 2
2. The applicant is claiming regular bail, who has been arrested on 21.04.2024 in connection with Crime No. 2 of 2024, registered at Police Station Salhewara, District Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan-Gandai, for the offense punishable under Sections 376(2)(n), 376(3), 294, 323, and 506 of the IPC, and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, and Section 3(1)(xii) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
3. Case of the prosecution in brief is that on 18.01.2024, prosecutrix has lodged a written report to the Police alleging therein that on 10.01.2024, when she had gone to Baihar (MP) to perform in dance programme with the group, after the performance, she stayed at the house of one Govind. During the period, on 13.01.2024, applicant called her through Mobile Phone that he required a girl to perform in dance programme. At about 7.30 pm, applicant took her on his Motorcycle to his house, and from there, they went towards Salhetekri on Car, and in the Car itself, he committed marpeet with her and thereafter, he committed rape upon her. By the incident, she became unconscious. He took her to his house and again committed rape upon her and threatened her. In the next morning, somehow, she could save herself, and went to a temple nearby, and informed a person, who present there, and thereafter, with the help of those persons, she returned to her house, and informed the incident to her parents. FIR has been registered against the applicant, in which he was arrested on 21.01.2024, and charge-sheet has been filed.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant would submit that out of a total of 28 cited witnesses, 16 witnesses have been examined 3 before the learned trial court. The victim has been examined as PW- 2, and there are material omissions and contradictions in her evidence, which clearly demonstrate that, there was no offense against the applicant. He would further submit that there is no injury found on the body of the victim, and there is no legally admissible evidence with respect to the age determination of the victim. In the absence of any sufficient evidence, the rejection of bail amounts to pretrial detention. Final adjudication of the case will take its own time; therefore, he filed this third bail application.
5. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the State opposes and has submitted that two bail applications of the applicant have already been dismissed on merits and therefore, his third bail application is liable to be rejected.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the bail application.
7. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, considering the nature of the allegation and the evidence available in the charge sheet, further considering that out of total 28 cited witnesses, 16 witnesses have already been examined and the trial is in advanced stage, the two bail applications of the applicant have already been rejected by this court on merits on 14.11.2024 and 23.07.2025, further considering that the victim (PW-2) has already been examined on 16.08.2024 i.e. much prior to the rejection of the first bail application of the applicant, I am not inclined to consider the 4 submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant to be a change in circumstances.
8. Accordingly, the third bail application of the applicant is dismissed.
9. Considering the fact that the applicant is in jail since 21.04.2024, the learned trial court is directed to make all its endeavors to conclude the trial as early as possible.
Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge ved