1 2025:CGHC:16434 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 2256 of 2025 1 - Dinesh Baland @ Dauva S/o Sukhsen Baland Aged About 22 Years R/o Chyual Kaimapara, Police Station Kotadol, District Manendragarh-Chirmiri- Bharatpur, At Present R/o Dream Industries Bread Factory Manendragarh, Police Station Manendragarh, District Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Of Police Station Manendragarh, District Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant : Shri Anil Gulati, Advocate. For Respondent : Ms. Laxmeen Kashyap, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J Order on Board 08.04.2025 1. Pursuant to the order dated 21.03.2025, the mother of victim appeared before the court through virtual mode from the concerned DLSA and raised objection in granting bail to the applicant. The submission is recorded. 2. This is first bail application seeking grant of bail to the Applicant who is in jail since 17.10.2024 in connection with Crime No.313/2024 registered at Police Station Manendragarh, District Manendragarh- Digitally signed by INDRAJEET SAHU Date: 2025.04.09 09:55:06 +0530 2 Chirmiri-Bharatpur for the offence punishable under Sections 65(1) of BNS and Section 4 of POCSO Act. 3. As per prosecution case, on 17.10.2024 the mother of victim lodged a report that her minor daughter aged about 15 years was subjected to rape by the applicant on 16.10.2024 at about 8:30 PM when she came out from her house to answer the nature’s call. The appellant kidnapped her towards culvert and committed rape upon her. After the incident she came back to her house and informed about the incident. Since it was night time, she lodged report on the next day. The offences were registered against the applicant and he was arrested. While medically examine the victim, pain was noticed on her right wrist. 4. Learned Counsel for the applicant would submit that there is no cogent evidence with respect to age of victim. She was in love affair with the applicant and herself engaged in making consensual physical relationship with him. The injury can be self inflicted. Therefore, the applicant may be released on bail as final adjudication may take sometime and there is no considerable progress in trial. 5. On the other hand the counsel for the State opposes the bail application and have submitted that from the material collected during investigation, the prosecutrix appears to be minor on the date of incident and she was kidnapped and subjected to sexual intercourse by the applicant and therefore he is not entitled for bail. 6. Without commenting on merits, considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the age and conduct of the prosecutrix, the nature of allegation and evidence collected during investigation and also considering the injury received by the victim, this Court is of the 3 opinion that present is not a fit case where the Applicant can be enlarged on bail. 7. Accordingly, the application for grant of bail is rejected. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge inder