1 2025:CGHC:24489 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 3211 of 2025 Rahul Sharma S/o Shardanand Sharma Aged About 29 Years Resident Of Bhumihar, Gorakhri, Police Station- Vikram, District- Patna, Bihar ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station- Mohan Nagar, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. VVS Murthy, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Shantanu Kumar, Advocate For Respondent/State : Ms. Vaishali Mahilong, P.L. For Objector : Mr. Jitendra Gupta, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order On Board 16/06/2025 1. The victim along with her mother appeared through virtual mode from concerned DLSA 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. 407/2024, registered at Digitally signed by SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Date: 2025.06.18 10:28:38 +0530 2 Police Station – Mohan Nagar, District- Durg (C.G.) for offence punishable under Sections 376 (2) and 506 Part-II of the IPC and U/s 6 of the POCSO Act. 3. The prosecution story, in short, is that the applicant/accused having forcibly established physical relations with the victim, who was a minor girl of 16 years, on more than one occasion by luring her with marriage and threatening to defame her and kill her, by committing rape and aggravated sexual assault on 07.05.2024 at about 08:00 pm and on 25.06.2024 at about 02.00 pm, at the house of the victim and thereafter at his rented house in Urla, under police station Mohan Nagar, District- Durg (CG) and causing criminal intimidation by threatening to kill her if she told anyone about the physical relationship. Based on above, offence has been registered against the applicant. 4. Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the crime in question. He further submits that no seizure has been made from the victim. The Doctor who examined the victim has not given clearcut opinion that the victim was being raped. Further, there was a contradiction as regards to the age of the victim. The applicant is in jail since 09.10.2024, out of 17 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 and Objector oppose the bail application and submit that at the time of incident, the victim was minor. 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. 3 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