JUDGMENT Vishnu Pratap Singh Chauhan, J. - Heard on this repeat second post arrest bail application for grant of bail under Section 439 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of the applicant. 2. The applicant is in jail in connection with Crime No.368/2020 registered at Police Station Maihar, District Satna (M.P.) for commission of offence punishable under Sections 417, 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5/6 of the POCSO Act. 3. The first application for the same relief was dismissed on merits by order dated 31.07.2020 passed by this Court in M.Cr.C.No.22873/2020. 4. The allegation against the applicant, in short, is that the prosecutrix lodged a report against the applicant alleging therein that the applicant developed a friendship with her and on the pretext of marriage, repeatedly committed rape upon her. Thereafter, the applicant made obscene video of her and viral that video on social media when she denied to corporate with the sex. As alleged, the prosecutrix, at the time of incident, was below the age of 18 years. After investigation, charge sheet has been filed. The applicant has been arrested on 19.05.2020 since then he is in jail. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that this second application has been filed on the ground that prosecutrix had executed an affidavit alleging therein that she was major at the time of incident and she settled all the disputes with the applicant and she is having no objection if the applicant is released on bail. The prosecutrix herself appeared through video-conferencing and pleaded no objection. In these circumstances, this second application may be allowed and the applicant be released on bail. 6. Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State has vehemently opposed the prayer made on behalf of the applicant and submits that first application was dismissed after considering all the allegations made in this repeat application and there is no change in in ground and circumstances for releasing the applicant on bail. Learned Panel Lawyer further submits that a mobile phone has been seized from the possession of the applicant having the contents of obscene video of the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix was pressurized by the family members of the applicant for giving affidavit and under such circumstance, she has filed an affidavit and pleaded no objection. Therefore, it has been prayed to dismiss this application. 7. The prosecutrix was pressurized by the family members of the applicant for giving affidavit and under such circumstance, she has filed an affidavit and pleaded no objection. Therefore, it has been prayed to dismiss this application. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, no doubt, in the first previous application, the prosecutrix filed an affidavit and pleaded no objection if applicant is released on bail and in this second application, again the prosecutrix appeared herself through video-conferencing and filed the same affidavit and pleaded no objection. 8. In these circumstances, this Court finds that there is no change in circumstances. The date of birth of the prosecutrix recorded in the School Scholar Register is 15.02.2001 and the prosecutrix lodged a report on 19.05.2020, before that, she was subjected to rape by the applicant and she reported the first incident in the year 2019. There is prima facie obscene video clippings found in the mobile phone of the applicant and it is prima facie reflected that the applicant created pressure on the prosecutrix and procured the consent on the pretext of marriage as well as for viraling the obscene video on the social media. In these circumstances, if the prosecutrix pleaded no objection, this Court is not inclined to allow this second application because the first application has been dismissed on merits on the same ground as alleged in this second application. 9. Consequently, this second application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of applicant-Sunil Kumar Sharma, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.