1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 2857 of 2025 Lalit Anchala S/o Late Somaruram Anchala Aged About 24 Years R/o Village- Pungaon, Chhindpara, Police Station- Antagarh, District Uttar Bastar Kanker (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station- Antagarh, District Uttar Bastar Kanker (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant(s) : Mr. Shivendu Pandya, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. G. L. Uikey, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order On Board 09.06.2025 1. On 09.05.2025, the victim along with her father appeared through virtual mode from DLSA Kanker and raised objection in granting bail to the applicant. BHOLA NATH KHATAI Digitally signed by BHOLA NATH KHATAI Date: 2025.06.10 17:54:36 +0530 2 2. Heard on the application filed u/s 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. This is the first bail application for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No.17/2024 registered at Police Station Antagarh, District Uttar Bastar Kanker (CG) for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(n) of IPC and Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. 3. As per the prosecution case, the applicant knowing fully well that the victim was a minor yet he repeatedly committed sexual intercourse with her, due to which she became pregnant and gave birth to a child. Subsequently, on the report being made by the father of the victim, the applicant was arrested on 08.03.2024. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case as the prosecutrix is a consenting party and there is no authentic proof of her age. He submits that there was an inordinate delay in lodging the FIR and the DNA report has not been received. He further submits that there are total 19 witnesses out of which 7 witnesses have been examined till date and the the applicant is in jail since 08.03.2024 and there is no likelihood of the trial to be concluded at the earliest, therefore, the applicant may be released on bail. 5. State counsel, on the other hand, opposing the bail application submits that considering the nature of offence, the applicant does not deserve to be released on bail. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 3 7. Taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the nature and gravity of offence, the material collected and available on record and the fact that some important witnesses are yet to be examined, this Court is not inclined to release the applicant on bail. 8. Accordingly, the present bail application is rejected. However, the trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and to ensure that the trial is concluded as expeditiously as possible. 9. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) JUDGE Khatai