1 2025:CGHC:28123 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 4065 of 2025 1 - Virendra Agariya Son Of Vijay Agariya Caste- Agariya, Aged About 19 Years, Occupation- Student, Resident Of Village- Makarbandha, Police Station And Tahsil- Ramanujnagar, District- Surajpur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station- Udaypur, District- Surguja (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Krishnakant Prajapati, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Ms. Pragya Shrivastava, Dy.G.A. 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. 63/2025 registered at Police Station – Udaypur, District-Surguja (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 137, 64(2)(d) of B.N.S. and Section 4, 6 of POCSO Act. SOURABH PATEL Digitally signed by SOURABH PATEL Date: 2025.06.26 17:57:00 +0530 2 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that, the applicant has abducted the victim without the consent of her lawful guardianship and committed sexual intercourse with her. Initially the missing report was lodged by maternal uncle of the applicant and after recovery of victim, the aforesaid offence have been registered against the applicant. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case, he has not committed any offence as alleged against him. It is further contended that charge-sheet has been filed and the statement recorded under Section 183 of BNSS does not incriminate the applicant. It is also submitted that the applicant has no criminal antecedent and he is in jail since 28.04.2025. 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. Therefore, at this stage, he may not be enlarged on bail. 5. Today, uncle of the victim appeared through the concerned DLSA and raised his objection in granting bail to the applicant. 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 3 evidence against the applicant, further taking into account that the charge-sheet has been filed but it does not appear that the trial has commenced, therefore, I am not inclined to grant bail to the applicant at this stage. 8. Accordingly, the bail application filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 is rejected. 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.