1 2025:CGHC:15351 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 2053 of 2025 1 - Sameer Asrafi Alias Babu Alias Sheikh Moinuddin S/o Sheikh Hussain Aged About 27 Years R/o Taj Chowk Moulipara Telibandha, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Telibandha, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Priyank Rathi, Advocate For Respondent/State : Shri Vivek Sharma, PL (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) C A V Order 01/04/2025 The applicant has filed this second bail application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrrik Suraksha Sanhita for grant of regular bail as he is in custody in connection with Crime No. 643/2024 registered at police station Telibandha, Raipur District Raipur (CG) ) for the offence punishable under Sections 65(2) of BNS, 2023 and 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act 2012. 2 2. Prosecution case in brief is that Complainant-mother of the prosecutrix lodged a report alleging that the applicant had forcefully committed sexual intercourse with her daughter from 29.03.2021 to 11.02.2023 and she became pregnant. Complainant has stated that that on 29.03.2021, she met the applicant for the first time and the applicant forcefully committed physical relation and thereafter it continued and the prosecutrix remained absent in school. On 13.02.2023, the prosecutrix was shifted to Girls Open Shelter Home, Telibandha and after two months she again came home. The applicant again used to call her to his home and developed intimacy with her. The prosecutrix was medically examined and her statement was recorded under Section 183 BNSS. It is further case of prosecution that the prosecutrix got aborted on 16.06.2024 and on the basis of the said report, the applicant was arrested. 3. Contention of the counsel for the applicant is that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the crime in question. He further submits that the applicant has not committed any offence and only general and false allegations are made in the FIR and therefore it cannot be believed on its face value. He submits that the FIR lodged by the complainant is an afterthought and there is no proper explanation given for the delay in the lodging the FIR. It is submitted that in the statement of the prosecutrix under Section183 BNS that no offence has been committed by the applicant. He further submits that the prosecutrix herself has stated that her mother does not like the applicant because he was of different religion and therefore a false case has been made against him. It is submitted that the medical report of the prosecutrix does not disclose the commission of any offence with the prosecutrix and therefore it cannot be said that the present applicant had committed the offence. Lastly, it is submitted that the applicant is in jail since 3 08.10.2024; charge sheet has been filed and looking to the conduct of the prosecution it is clear that the trial will take time for its conclusion and therefore the applicant be released on bail. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent/State, on the other hand, has opposed the bail application. 5. Victim has appeared through the concerned DLSA and have raised objection for granting bail to the applicant. 6. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the case diary with utmost circumspection. 7. On due consideration of the rival submissions and the fact that the applicant committed forceful sexual intercourse with the victim who was a minor and she became pregnant and thus, looking to the nature of the offence, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail. Accordingly, the bail application filed under Section 483 of the BNSS is hereby rejected. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge SUGUNA DUBEY Digitally signed by SUGUNA DUBEY Date: 2025.04.04 17:40:32 +0530