1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 2962 of 2025 Sunil Kumar S/o Shiv Kumar Aged About 19 Years R/o Pacheda, P.S. Dondhi (Wrongly Mentioned As Doundi In The Impugned Order), District Balod Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, P.S. Dondhi (Wrongly Mentioned As Doundi In The Impugned Order), District Balod Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Prasoon Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent : Ms. Prabha Sharma, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order On Board 11.06.2025 1. This is the first bail application filed u/s 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No.100/2024 registered at Police Station Dondhi, District Balod (CG) for the offence punishable under Sections 137(2), 87, 64(2)(M) of BNS BHOLA NATH KHATAI Digitally signed by BHOLA NATH KHATAI Date: 2025.06.13 16:51:36 +0530 2 and Sections 5(ठ)/6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. 2. As per the prosecution case, the applicant knowing fully well that the victim was a minor, took her from the lawful guardianship of her parents and committed sexual intercourse with her on the pretext of marriage. Subsequently, on the report being made in this regard, the applicant was arrested on 07.01.2025. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the prosecutrix has been examined before the trial Court and she has not supported the case of prosecution and turned hostile. He submits that as per the trial Court order dated 08.04.2025, the father of the victim has also made his no objection in granting bail to the applicant. He further submits that the applicant is in jail since 07.01.2025 and there is no likelihood of the trial to be concluded at the earliest, therefore, considering all these facts, the applicant may be released on bail. 4. Learned state counsel, on the other hand, opposing the bail application submits that the victim was recovered from the custody of the applicant and without any information, she stayed with the applicant in Maharashtra for 7 days and considering the nature of offence, the applicant does not deserve to be released on bail. 5. No one appeared for the victim/prosecutrix/complainant, despite service of notice. 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 and the material collected and available on record and also considering the fact that the victim was recovered from the custody of the applicant and without any information, she stayed with the applicant in Maharashtra for 7 days, this Court is not inclined to release the applicant on bail. 8. Accordingly, the present bail application stands rejected. 9. However, the Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and to ensure that the trial is concluded as expeditiously as possible. 10. 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