1 2025:CGHC:19268 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 2492 of 2025 Istiyaq Alam S/oajij Ansari Aged About 19 Years R/o Batwahi Chowki Raghunathpur, Police Station Lundra, District Surguja Chhattisgarh. --- Applicant (s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Lundra, District Surguja Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) MCRC No. 2820 of 2025 Injamamul Haque Ansari S/o Esrail Ansari Aged About 20 Years R/o Batwahi Chowki Raghunathpur, Police Station Lundra, District Surguja Chhattisgarh. ---Applicant(s) Versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Lundra, District Surguja Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) For Applicants : Mr. Anurag Singh, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kishan Lal Sahu, Dy. GA Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Order on Board 29/04/2025 1. These are the second bail applications filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicants who have been arrested in connection with Crime No. 84 of SANTOSH KUMAR SHARMA Digitally signed by SANTOSH KUMAR SHARMA Date: 2025.04.29 16:15:03 +0530 2 2024 registered at Police Station Lundra, District Sarguja (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366(A), 354, 354(A), 34, 506, 212, 114, 120(B) of the IPC and 3(1)(W) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act and Sections 8 and 17 of the POCSO ACT. The first bail applications filed by the applicants were dismissed as withdrawn in MCRC No. 6500 of 2024 on 25.11.2024 and in MCRC No. 4175 of 2024 on 05.09.2024. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that teacher of middle school Junadih Kot has lodged the complaint alleging that on 02.04.2024 her daughter aged about 14 years had gone to school for examination thereafter she did not return to home. It is alleged that her minor daughter was allured and abducted by the co-accused from their lawful guardianship. On the basis of complaint, FIR was registered against the applicants under Section 363 of the IPC. During investigation, the victims were recovered at Ranchi Bus stand (Jharkhand) from possession of co-accused Injamamul Haque and Istiyaq Alam, both co-accused have allured the minor girls and took them from Raghunathpur to Jharkhand in a swift car bearing registration No. CG-13 AE 4931 which was driven by the co-accused. Thereafter, offence under Sections 363, 366(A), 354, 354(A), 354(D), 506, 34, 212, 114, 120(B) of the IPC and Sections 8, 17 of the POCSO Act was registered against the applicants. 3. Counsel for the applicants submit that the applicants are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in the case as they have no connection with the commission of offence. He would further submit that the victim went with the applicants of her own wish and there was no forcible pressure by the applicants. He would further submit that the prosecution has cited total 24 witnesses out of which only six 3 witnesses were examined before the Court and 18 witnesses is yet to be examined and trial will take some time for its conclusion. He would further submit that the applicants are in jail since 03.04.2024 and charge sheet has already been filed. The victim was examined and no custodial interrogation is required in this case, therefore, he prays for enlarging the applicants on regular bail. 4. On the other hand learned counsel for the State would submit that minor girl were forcefully abduced by accused persons. He would further submit that the statements of the victims were recorded under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC wherein they have stated about the role played by the applicants. He would further submit that looking to the role attributed to the applicants, they are not entitled for grant of bail and would pray for rejection of the bail applications. 5. In pursuance of notice issued by this Court on 09.04.2025, victim’s father appeared before this Court through concerned DLSA and raised his objection for grant of bail to the applicants. His objection is taken on record. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Considering the fact that the prosecution has cited total 24 witnesses out of which only six witnesses were examined before the Court and 18 witnesses is yet to be examined and trial will take some time for its conclusion, further considering the fact that applicants are in jail since 03.04.2024, more than 1 year has already been lapsed and the fact that charge sheet has already been filed, this Court is of the opinion that it is fit case to release the applicants on bail. 4 8. Accordingly, the bail applications are allowed and the applicants are directed to be released on bail on both the cases on their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety in each cases for the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court for their appearance before that Court as and when so directed. 9. Certified copy as per rules. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Santosh