1 2025:CGHC:11077 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 563 of 2025 Dipesh Halwai S/o Shri Deepak Halwai Aged About 33 Years R/o Ward No. 15, Mahalpara, Saraipali, Ps Saraipali, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh (Through Sho Ps Saraipali, Distt. Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh) --- Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Sabyasachi Bhaduri, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Kishan Lal Sahu, Dy. GA Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Order on Board 06.03.2025 1. This is the second bail application of the applicant under Section 483 of B.N.S.S., 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested on 20.06.2024 in connection with Crime No. 175/2024, registered at Police Station Saraipali, District Mahasamund (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 376(2) n of IPC and 4 of the POCSO Act. First bail application of the applicant was dismissed as withdrawn on 22.10.2024 in MCRC No. 5407 of 2024. SANTOSH KUMAR SHARMA Digitally signed by SANTOSH KUMAR SHARMA Date: 2025.03.07 10:46:40 +0530 2 2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that the victim lodged the complaint before Police Station Saraipali stating that in the year 2014, she was aged about 17 years and was pursuing DCA course at Balaji Computer Institute, owned by the applicant as she did not securing admission in Government college. It is alleged that the accused stopped her in the class for giving extra class of handwork and took her to other room where he committed sexual intercourse many a times with her on the pretext of marriage from year 2014 to 2022 and thereafter he refused to marry with her. On the basis of complaint, offence under Sections 376(2)n and 4 of the POCSO was registered against the applicant. 3. Counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the case. He would further submit that victim’s father was examined before the Court wherein he has not supported the case of the prosecution, therefore, no case under Section 376 (2) n of the IPC is made out against. He would further submit that from reading the statement of the father of the victim, it is quite vivid, that sexual intercourse was not developed with the victim on the pretext of marriage even the victim was in a consensual relationship with the applicant of her own will. He would further submit that there is inordinate delay in lodging the FIR, material witness has already been examined and no custodial interrogation is not required. He would further submit that the applicant is in jail since 20.06.2024, therefore, he may be released on bail. 4. On the other hand learned State counsel vehemently objected the submission of the learned counsel for the applicant and would submit that the victim was examined before the Court wherein she has stated that the applicant made physical relationship with her many a time on the pretext of marriage and thereafter he refused to marry with her. He would further 3 submit that while negotiation for marriage was started between the family members of the applicant and the vicitm but because of unfair demand of the applicant the marriage was not solemnized which clearly demonstrate that intention of the applicant that he was not interested to marriage with her would pray for dismissal of the bail application. 5. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. On 21.01.2025 this Court had directed the victim to appear before this Court. On 13.02.2025 the victim appeared before this Court through video conferencing and raised objection in releasing the applicant on bail. Her objection was taken on record. 7. From perusal of the statement of victim, it is quite vivid, that the victim was subjected to sexual intercourse when she was minor, as such consent cannot be said to be free consent, therefore, I am of the considered opinion that it is not a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant. 8. Accordingly, bail application filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 is rejected. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Santosh