1 2025:CGHC:30284 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 3410 of 2025 Aditya Devdas S/o Shri Bansilal Devdas Aged About 20 Years R/o Atal Awas, Panchvati Colony, Thana- City Kotwali, District Dhamtari. Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh through Station House Officer, Police Station- Arjuni, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For the applicant : Mr. Sumeet Shrivastava, Advocate For the State : Mr. Karan Kumar Bahrani, Panel Lawyer (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Order on Board 03/07/2025 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. 235/2024 registered at Police Station Arjuni, District A ANNAJEE RAO Digitally signed by A ANNAJEE RAO Date: 2025.07.05 11:32:44 +0530 2 Dhamtari (CG) for the offences under Sections 137(2), 87, 64(2)(m) of BNS, 2023 and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012. 2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that the father of complainant filed written report on 16.08.2024 stating that his minor girl went to her school to attend the Independence Day celebrations and when she did not return to the house, he searched for the girl and could not trace out her. During investigation, it was found that the applicant had taken her away by his Scooty to different places and in the night, she was forced to stay with him in his house at Dhamtari where he committed forcible sexual intercourse with her. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the prosecutrix has voluntarily accompanied and travelled with the applicant from one place to another and though she stayed with the applicant for a considerable time, she did not raise any alarm against the applicant. He further submits that the version of the prosecutrix is not supported by the medical report and FSL report which go to show that no physical relations were established with the prosecutrix. He further submits that the applicant is in jail since 26.08.2024 and till date, out of 15 witnesses 6 have been examined and there is no possibility of immediate disposal of the trial, therefore, the applicant may be enlarged on bail. 4. Per contra, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the victim girl has been examined and she has supported the prosecution case. She further submits that applicant has 3 criminal antecedents, which shows his conduct. 3 5. Despite service of notice, no-body has chose to appear on behalf of the victim girl to raise objection/non-objection regarding grant of bail. 6. Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, it is not a fit case to release the applicant on regular bail. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected. 7. However, looking to the custody period of the applicant, the trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and ensure that the trial is concluded as early as possible. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Rao