1 2025:CGHC:23868 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 3031 of 2025 1 - Rakesh Patel S/o Vishwanath Patel @ Anil Patel Aged About 21 Years R/o Sahipala, Salhepara, Near Shiv Mandir, P.S. and District Nuwapada (Nawapara), Orissa. ... Applicant versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh through Station House Officer, Police Station Tikrapara, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For the applicant : Mr. C.R. Sahu, Advocate For the State : Mr. Pranjal Shukla, Dy.A.G. (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Order on Board 13/06/2025 1. This is first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant in Crime No. 287/2023 registered at Police Station Tikarapara, Raipur District Raipur, Chhattisgar for the offences under Sections 363, 366, 376(3), 34 of IPC and section 6 of the POCSO Act . A ANNAJEE RAO Digitally signed by A ANNAJEE RAO Date: 2025.06.17 14:39:24 +0530 2 2. The prosecution story is that on 13.06.2023 the father of victim has lodged a report that in the morning at 5.30 a.m., the girl had gone with her mother to a toilet room situated at Bhatagaon Bus-stand and she did not return. However, during investigation, it was revealed that on 12.06.2023 the victim had returned from Allahabad and had gone to Toilet room situated at Bhatagaon Bus-Stand. At that time, when the victim was going to fetch water as she felt thirsty, the applicant forcibly made her sit in an auto and took her to Bagbahara via Mahasamund. At that time, co-accused Sanjay was also in the auto. The accused took the victim from Bagbahara to Cuttack, Odisha and kept her at the place of his relative and after forcibly marrying her had committed sexual intercourse with the victim many times. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the prosecutrix was major and her age has not been proved. He further submits that she had voluntarily accompanied the applicant and both they visited together several places and she never raised any alarm against the applicant during such visit, therefore, she was a consenting party. He submits that the applicant is in jail since 25.07.2023 and the trial has not yet been completed, hence looking to the long custody period of applicant, he may be enlarged on bail, at this stage. 4. Per contra, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the girl was minor at the time of incident and the applicant took her away from the lawful custody of her parents and committed forcible sexual intercourse. 3 5. The daughter along with complainant/informant has appeared through VC from the concerned DLSA and objected to bail. 6. Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and the material placed before me, I do not feel it appropriate to allow this bail application. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected. 7. However, looking to the custody period of applicant and the fact that the trial has not yet been completed, treating it as an exceptional case, the trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and to ensure that the trial is concluded within 4 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Rao