1 / 3 2025:CGHC:5687 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 202 of 2025 1 - Rohit Singh Gaharwar @ Ranjit S/o Santosh Gaharwar Aged About 26 Years R/o Rambagh, Bargadh Road, Near Bazar, P/s Panwar, District Rewa, M.P. Presently At-Matri Pitri Chaya Apartment, Priyadarshini Nagar, Guard Room, P/s New Rajendra Nagar, Raipur, C.G. ... Applicant versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Ps New Rajendra Nagar, Raipur, C.G. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Manoj Kumar Yadav, Advocate appears on behalf of Mr. Lukesh Kumar Mishra, Advocate For State : Ms. Laxmeen Kashyap, PL For Objector : Ms. Smita Jha, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board 30/01/2025 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Shuraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant, who has been arrested on 21/11/2024 in connection with Crime No. 433/2024, registered at Police Station New Rajendra Nagar, Raipur, C.G. ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA Date: 2025.02.01 11:31:41 +0530 2 / 3 for the offence punishable under Section 74 of B.N.S. & Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that the mother of the prosecutrix lodged a written complaint on 20/11/2024 at 19.30 PM stating that her son and daughter aged about 7 & 8 years, respectively, were molested by the applicant on 19/11/2024 at about 20.30 hours. Based on such written complaint, the FIR bearing Crime No.433/24 under Section 74 of the BNS & Section 8 of the POCSO was registered against the applicant and the applicant was arrested on 21/11/2024. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant has been falsely implicated because the minors were frequently entering into the guard room where the electricity supply connection of the building existed, therefore, the applicant complained the same to the mother of the minors due to which the quarrel took place. He would next contend that the applicant was serving as a guard in the premises and there was no such complaint against the applicant and it is only because of the quarrel took place with the complainant, the said FIR has been lodged. He would lastly contend that the applicant is in jail since 21/11/2024, therefore, he may be released on bail. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel and learned counsel for the objector oppose the prayer for grant of bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties at length and perused the documents. 6. Considering the allegations leveled against the applicant and he despite being a Guard, who was supposed to do the security of the premises 3 / 3 committed such type of offence, therefore, looking to the nature and gravity of offence, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail. 7. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected. Sd/- SD/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE ashu