1 2025:CGHC:23148 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 2923 of 2025 • Shabbir Pathan S/o Samsuddin Pathan, Aged About 47 Years, R/o Lamboti, P.S. Mohol District Solapur Maharashtra Present Address Nandi Chowk P.S. Arang District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus • State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. - New Rajendra Nagar, District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Sudeep Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. G.L. Uikey, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board 11 / 06 / 2025 1. The accused/applicant has moved this first bail application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 for releasing him on regular bail during trial in connection with Crime No. 16/2025 registered at Police Station – New Rajendra Nagar, SOURABH PATEL Digitally signed by SOURABH PATEL Date: 2025.06.13 10:28:27 +0530 2 District – Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 65(2) & 351(2) of BNS & Section 4(2) of POCSO Act. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the mother of the victim lodged a written comlaint at the Rajendra Nagar Police Station on 21.01.2025, stating that on 01.10.2024 at about 7:15 pm, her daughter (the victim) was alone at home when the accused entered the house. He allegedly took the victim to the bedroom, pressed her mouth with his hands, and committed rape and also threatened to kill her family members if she disclosed the incident to anyone. Based on this, offence has been registered against the present applicant. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. He next submits that the father of the victim namely Satnam Singh has several criminal antecedents and was unable to pay the loan amount taken from the present applicant, therefore, the victim has been used as a tool to falsely implicate the applicant. He further submits that the incident took place on 01.10.2024 but the FIR has been lodged on 21.01.2025 without any plausible explanation for the delay. The charge-sheet has been filed on 20.03.2025 and the applicant is in custody since 04.03.2025. There is no likelihood of his case being decided 3 in the near future, therefore, the present applicant may be released on bail. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application and submits that out of 17 witnesses only 02 witnesses have been examined till date and there are some important witnesses still remained for examination, therefore, at this stage, he may not be enlarged on bail. 5. Victim along with her father and mother appeared before this Court today and raised her objection against the bail application. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, particularly looking to the material available on record and the evidence against the applicant, further considering the fact that only 02 witnesses out of 17 witnesses have been examined and some important witnesses are still remaining for examination, at this stage, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail. 8. Accordingly, the bail application filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 is rejected. However, concerned trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and to ensure that the trial is concluded as expeditiously as possible. 4 9. Office is directed to sent a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Sourabh P.