1 2025:CGHC:26790 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 4277 of 2025 Dhannu @ Dhansagar Barman S/o Late Mohar Das Aged About 34 Years R/o Village- Lata, Police Station- Jarhagaon, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station- Jarhagaon, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicant : Ms. Nirupama Bajpai, Advocate For Respondent : Ms. Sunita Manikpuri, Dy. G.A. For Objector : Ms. Sangeeta Kaushik, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order On Board 23/06/2025 1. The applicant has preferred this 1st bail application under Section 483 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita Act 2023 for grant of regular bail as he is arrested in connection with crime No. 86/2023, registered at Police Station – Jarhagaon, District- Mungeli (C.G.) for offence punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376(I)(N) of IPC and Section 4, 6 of the POCSO Act. Digitally signed by SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Date: 2025.06.24 16:50:55 +0530 2 2. The prosecution story, in short, is that on 22.05.2023, father of the victim lodged a written report in concerned police station stating therein that the applicant lured his daughter and taken her with him. On the basis of said written complaint, initially offence under Section 363 of IPC was registered. On 07.04.2025, the victim was recovered from the possession of the applicant and her statement was recorded. Based on her statement, offences under Sections 363, 366, 376 (I)(N) were added. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the crime in question. She further submits that the victim was a consenting party and she was turned hostile before the Trial Court. Before the arrest of the applicant, the victim was living with the applicant as his wife along with their child. The applicant is in jail since 08.04.2025, out of 18 prosecution witnesses, only 1 has been examined till date and the trial is likely to take time to be finalized, therefore, it is prayed that the applicant may be enlarged on bail. 4. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the bail application and submits that looking to the nature of offence, the applicant may not be released on bail. 5. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, evidence collected by the prosecution against the applicant, nature of offence and further considering that statements of other important witnesses are remain to be examined, at this stage, without further commenting on merits of the case, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail. 7. Accordingly, the bail application is Rejected. However, the Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and to ensure that the trial is concluded as expeditiously as possible. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Shubham