1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 1964 of 2025 1 - Aryan Sonwani S/o Suresh Sonwani Aged About 18 Years R/o Village Nadimod, Ghodari, P.S. City Kotwali, District- Mahasamund (C.G.). ... Applicant Versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, P.S.- Mandir Hasaud, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant : Shri Vivek Ranjan Tiwari, Sr. Advocate along with Shri Atul Kumar Kesharwani, Advocate. For Respondent : Shri Santosh Bharat, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J Order on Board 09.06.2025 1. This is second bail application seeking grant of bail to the Applicant who is in jail since 08.08.2024 in connection with Crime No.373/2024 registered at Police Station Mandir Hasaud, District Raipur for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376(2)(n) IPC and Section 4 of POCSO Act. 2. The first bail application was dismissed as withdrawn on 17.12.2024 in MCRC No.7285 of 2024 with liberty to repeat the same after examination of material witnesses. The victim has been examined as PW-1 on 03.01.2025 whereas, the Headmaster of School as well as Digitally signed by INDRAJEET SAHU Date: 2025.06.09 18:12:03 +0530 2 brother of victim have also been examined on 30.05.2025 as PW-2 & PW-3 respectively. Therefore, this second bail application. 3. As per prosecution case, on 30.04.2024 a missing report was lodged by the brother of victim that her minor sister is missing and her whereabouts could not be traced out. The police registered offence under Section 363 IPC and started investigation. During investigation the victim was recovered from the possession of applicant on the same day and after recording her statement, the police added other offences of Sections 366, 376(2)(n) IPC and Section 4 of POCSO Act. The applicant was arrested on 08.08.2024 and charge sheet was filed. 4. Learned Counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant is innocent and have been falsely implicated in the case. There is no cogent evidence on record that victim was minor on the date of incident. The applicant and victim was of same age group. They were having love affair. She herself eloped along with applicant on her own will and made consensual physical relation without any protest. Only on the instance of family members she made allegation against the applicant. The victim, her brother as well as Headmaster of the school have already been examined and there is no chance of tampering with the witnesses. Out of total 21 witnesses only 3 witnessed have been examined till date. Therefore, the applicant may be enlarged on bail as final adjudication will take its own time. 5. On the other hand the counsel for the State opposes the bail application. 6. Without commenting on merits, considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the age and conduct of the victim, the nature of allegation and material collected during investigation, the 3 applicant is in jail since 08.08.2024 and also considering the fact that material witnesses have been examined and out of 21 witnesses only 3 witnessed have been examined till date, this Court is of the opinion that present is a fit case where the Applicant can be enlarged on bail. 7. Accordingly, the application for grant of bail is allowed. It is directed that the Applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety of the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Trial Court for his appearance on each date of hearing before the trial Court, unless exempted from personal appearance by the said Court. 8. It is made clear that the observations made by this court is only restricted to the decision of bail application and shall not affect the merits of the case. The trial court is expected to decide the case on its own merit without being influenced by any of the observations made hereinabove. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge inder