1 2025:CGHC:19735 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 2889 of 2025 Ramjeet Prajapati S/o Sahas Ram Aged About 29 Years R/o Village Raghunathpur, Police Station And Tahsil Premnagar, District Surajpur (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House OfÏcer, Police Of Police Station Premnagar, District Surajpur (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Anil Kumar Gulati, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Monika Thakur, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 30/04/2025 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 121/2024 registered at Police Station-Premnagar, District- Surajpur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 64 (2) (ड), 351 (क- 3), 115 (2) of B.N.S. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on the basis of written report lodged by the victim, in which she alleged that prior two years, she went to perform the Goura Dance and in the night, the applicant PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.05.01 12:51:12 +0530 2 came there caught hold her hand gagged her mouth and took her towards the room and threatened her and thereafter the applicant established physical relationship with the victim and since thereafter the applicant whenever saw her alone, the applicant used to establish physical relationship with the victim and ultimately on 16- 07- 2024, when the victim went to agricultural field, at that time, the applicant came there and when the victim denied to go with the applicant, he assaulted the victim with hand and fists. On the basis of report lodged by the victim, the applicant has been arrested for the commission of the alleged offences. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that even if the entire prosecution case is taken as it is, the conduct of victim clearly reveals that she is consenting party and she voluntarily accompanied the applicant for a period of considerable time. The applicant and victim remained in relationship from 28-12- 2021 to 16-07-2024 and FIR was lodged on 16-11-2024 and as per the version of victim, the applicant established physical relationship with the victim at number of occasion, the testimony of victim clearly reveals that she is consenting party and she accompanied the applicant on her own will and the victim never informed to any person with regard to the sexual harassment by the applicant, the victim is a major girl aged about 20 years. He further submits that initially the Section of POCSO Act has been added, but during the course of investigation, Dhakhil Kharij Panji was received by the police, in which the date of birth of victim mentioned as 25-09-2003 3 and as per the Dakhil Kharij Panji on the date of incident, the victim is aged about 21 years of age and the applicant has not been prosecuted under Section 6 of POCSO Act. It is also pertinent to mention here at this juncture, the applicant has not assaulted the victim with sickle and when the applicant went to the agricultural field and when the applicant called the victim, some alteration of word took place, on account of which, the applicant assaulted the victim with hand and for which the applicant has been prosecuted under Section 115 (2) of BNS and the punishment is under Section 115 (2) is imprisonment of either description for a terms which may extent to one year or with fine, which may extent to 10,000/- or with both and further there is delay in lodging the FIR and the same has not been explained properly by the prosecution and the applicant is in jail since 16.11.2024 and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel appearing for the respondent/State opposes the bail application and submits that the statement of victim recorded under Section 183 of BNSS wherein she stated that applicant has established forcefully sexual relationship with her without her concent and also assaulted her by hands and fists, on account of which she received injuries on her hand and thereafter threatened her to kill, if she narrate this incident to anyone however, medical report of the victim is awaited. Accordingly, he is not entitled for grant of bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 4 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of offence and the fact that the statement of victim girl aged about 20 years recorded under Section 183 of BNSS, wherein she stated that the applicant has established forcefully sexual relationship with her without her consent and also assaulted her by hands and fists, on account of which she received injuries on her hand and thereafter threatened her to kill, if she narrate this incident to anyone however, medical report of the victim is awaited thus, this Court does not find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. 7. Accordingly, the bail application of the Applicant namely-Ramjeet Prajapati, involved in Crime No. 121/2024 registered at Police Station-Premnagar, District- Surajpur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 64 (2) (ड), 351 (क-3), 115 (2) of B.N.S., is rejected. 8. OfÏce is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti