1 2025:CGHC:30698 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 3622 of 2025 Tokesh Nishad S/o Mohan Lal Nishad, R/o Dhimartikur, Post Nawagawn, Police Station Arjuni, Tehsil And District Dhamtari (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus State of Chhattisgarh through Police Station Keregawn, District Dhamtari (C.G.) ... Respondent For the applicant : Mr. Hemant Agrawal, Advocate For the State : Ms. Priya Sharma, Panel Lawyer (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Order on Board 04.07.2025 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. 55 of 2024 registered at Police Station Keregawn, District Dhamtari (CG) for the offences under Section 64(2)(m) of BNS and Section 6 of POCSO Act, 2012. 2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that the victim and the applicant were doing the labour work at village Araud where they came to be acquainted with each other and on the pretext of A ANNAJEE RAO Digitally signed by A ANNAJEE RAO Date: 2025.07.07 15:06:39 +0530 2 marriage, the applicant had developed love relations and forcibly committed sexual intercourse with her on many times during 5th January, 2024 to 10th January 2024 and due to continuous physical relations, she became pregnant and when her pregnancy was brought to the notice of applicant, he refused to marry her. Thereafter, on 05.09.2024 a child was born to her and out of fear she left the child in Balgrih, Kanker. On the report of victim, crime was registered and the applicant was arrested. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the age of the prosecutrix has not been proved as the Headmaster of the School is not the author of the entry made in the Admission/discharge register and further no ossification test was conducted to prove her age. He has relied on a decision of this Court reported in 2024 SCC OnLine Chhattisgarh 9326 (Shukhlal Nagesiya Versus State of CG decided on 23.09.2024 He submits that the prosecutrix being major had voluntarily accompanied the applicant and she was a consenting party, hence no offence is made out against him. He submits that the applicant is in jail since 13.09.2024 and till date out of total 23 witnesses only 6 witnesses including victim, her mother, sister and headmaster have been examined and there is no possibility of early disposal of the trial, therefore, looking to the long custody period of the applicant, he may be enlarged on bail. 4. Per contra, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application and submits that at the time of incident, the girl was minor and in her court statement she has supported the case of prosecution. She 3 further submits on the pretext of marriage, victim was subjected to forcible sexual intercourse, due to which, she was pregnant and when she insisted to marry her, the applicant refused and thereafter, a child was born. Meanwhile, the applicant’s marriage was fixed with another girl. 5. The victim girl along with her father 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 facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to release the applicant on regular bail, at this stage. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected. 7. However, looking the custody period of the applicant as he is stated to be in jail since 13.09.2024 and considering it as an exceptional case, the trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and ensure that the trial is completed as early as possible within a period of 4 months. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Rao 4