1 2025:CGHC:31580 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 4348 of 2025 Karan Kumar Rajput S/o Ramchand Lodhi (Wrongly Written As Ramchand Rajput) Aged About 20 Years R/o Village Sildaha (Wrongly Written As Village Dhakchaka), P.S. Pathariya, Distirct Mungeli (Chhattisgarh) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through S.H.O. P.S. Pathariya, District Mungeli (Chhattisgarh) ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Ankur Diwan, Adv. For Respondent/State : Mr. Vivek Sharma, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order On Board 09/07/2025 1. Despite service of notice to the victim, none appeared on behalf of the victim. 2. 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. 31/2025, registered at Police Station – Pathariya, District- Mungeli (C.G.) for offence SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Digitally signed by SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Date: 2025.07.09 16:05:01 +0530 2 punishable under Sections 137(2), 87 & 65(1) of BNS and Sections 4 & 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012. 3. The prosecution's case, in brief, is that on February 15, 2025, the complainant, who is the father of the victim, filed a missing person's report. According to the report, he had dropped his daughter off at school on February 12, 2025, but the school teacher informed him that she had not attended school that day. On receiving the information, missing person report was registered. During the investigation, after tracing the kidnapped girl and the unknown accused, the kidnapped girl was recovered from the possession of the accused/applicant Karan Kumar Rajput on 20.03.2025. Based on above, offence has been registered against the applicant. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the crime in question. The victim has examined before the Trial Court and she turned hostile. There was a love affair between the applicant and the victim and she was a consenting party. He further submits that the victim herself joined the company of the applicant on her own free will. In her medical report, there was no internal/external injury has been found on the body of the victim and the FSL report is also negative. The other co-accused has already been granted bail by the Trial Court. The applicant is in jail since 22.03.2025, out of 26 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. 5. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the bail application and submits that at the time of incident, the victim was minor, therefore, looking to the nature of offence, the applicant may not be released on bail. 6. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, evidence collected by the prosecution, detention period of the applicant and the fact that victim has been turned hostile before the Trial Court, as stated out of 26 prosecution witnesses only 1 has been examined till date 3 and the fact that trial is likely to take time to be finalized, without further commenting on merits of the case, I am inclined to release the applicant on bail. 8. Accordingly, the bail application is Allowed. 9. It is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail on executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 20,000/- with one solvent surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for his appearance before the said Court as and when directed. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Shubham