1 2025:CGHC:23867 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 3026 of 2025 Dhara Singh Jatav @ Rohit Jatav S/o Mahesh Jatav Aged About 20 Years R/o. Ward No. 2, Kashganj Para, Mastura Police Station Belgadha, District Gwalior (M.P.), Presently Residing At Ward No. 13, Pattharkhanbhata, Police Station Bilha, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Bilha, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant : Mr. Sumit Singh Rathore, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Pranjal Shukla, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order On Board 13/06/2025 1. Father of the victim appeared before this Court today and recorded objection in granting bail to the applicant. 2. The applicant has preferred this 1st bail application under Section 483 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita Act 2023 for grant of regular bail as he is arrested in connection with crime No. 30/2024, registered at Police Station – Bilha, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) for offence punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376 (2)(ढ़) of the IPC and U/s 3/4 (2), 5 (ठ)/6, 5 (अ)(ii)/6 of the POCSO Act. Digitally signed by SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Date: 2025.06.13 17:18:09 +0530 2 3. The prosecution story, in short, is that the applicant/accused in between 26.01.2024 to 07.10.2024, abducted the minor victim, aged 12 years 03 months 12 days, for sexual intercourse without the permission of her lawful guardian and committed repeated rape and penetrative sexual assault on her and committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault as a result of which she became pregnant. Based on above, offence has been registered against the applicant. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the crime in question. He further submits that there is a contradiction regarding age of the victim. The victim herself went to the applicant and stayed with him. The applicant is in jail since 09.10.2024, out of 31 prosecution witnesses only 2 have been examined till date and the trial is likely to some time to be finalized, therefore, it is prayed that the applicant may be enlarged on bail. 5. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the bail application and submits that at the time of incident, the victim was minor. After 9 months, she was recovered from the custody of the applicant. Therefore, looking to the nature of offence, the applicant may not be released on bail. 6. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, evidence collected by the prosecution against the applicant, nature of offence and further considering that important witnesses are remain to be examined, at this stage, without further commenting on merits of the case, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail. 8. Accordingly, the 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. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Shubham