1 2025:CGHC:28120 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 3939 of 2025 1 - Gaurav Kamalsen S/o Sudhir Kamalsen, Aged About 20 Years, R/o Village - Singhri, Police Station - Ratanpur, District - Bilaspur (C.G.). ... Applicant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Station House Officer, Police Station - Ratanpur, District - Bilaspur (C.G.). ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Ms. Priya Sharma, P.L. For Victim : Mr. Vidya Bhushan Soni, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board 26 / 06 / 2025 1. The accused/applicant has moved this first bail application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 for releasing him on regular bail during trial in connection with Crime No. 126/2025 registered at Police Station – Ratanpur, District-Bilaspur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 64 of B.N.S. and Section 4, 6 of POCSO Act. SOURABH PATEL Digitally signed by SOURABH PATEL Date: 2025.06.27 13:08:15 +0530 2 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that, between 20.09.2024 to 02.02.2025, whenever the victim was alone at home, the applicant/accused would allegedly forcefully establish physical relations with her on the pretext of marriage. It is also alleged that the applicant threatened the victim to circulate obscene photographs of the victim and defame her in society if she disclosed the incident to any. Based on the complaint filed by the victim’s mother, an FIR was registered and applicant was subsequently arrested. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant vehemently argues that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case, and he has not committed any offence as alleged against him. It is further contended that the medical report reveals no external injuries on the victim’s body, and the doctor opined that the victim was habitual to sexual intercourse, indicating that the victim was a consenting party. Furthermore, MLC of the victim indicates the presence of 14 teeth in the upper and lower jaw, which, according to the doctor’s assessment suggests that the victim was above 18 years old at the time of incident. Notably, the applicant has no criminal antecedent and he is in jail since 25.02.2025. There is no likelihood of his case being decided in the near future, therefore, the present applicant may be released on bail. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposed the bail application and submits that at the time of incident, the victim was aged about 17 years 03 months and out of 13 only 3 01 witness has been examined so far. Therefore, at this stage, he may not be enlarged on bail. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the victim opposed the bail application of the applicant and submits that he may not be enlarged on bail. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, particularly looking to the material available on record and the evidence against the applicant, further considering the fact that out of 13 witnesses only 01 witness has been examined and there are some important witnesses still remain for examination, therefore, at this stage, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail. 8. Accordingly, the bail application filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 is rejected. However, concerned trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and to ensure that the trial is concluded as expeditiously as possible. 9. Office is directed to sent a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Sourabh P.