1 2025:CGHC:30070 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRC No. 4658 of 2025 Dhanraj Kashyap S/o Lakhanlal Kashyap Aged About 45 Years Caste - Kurmi, R/o Pakariya Jhulan, P.S. Mulmula, Tehsil Akaltara, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Mulmula, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Applicant : Mr. Vikas Kumar Pandey, Advocate For Respondent/State :Mr. Rishabh Bisen, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 03.07.2025 1. The applicant has preferred this Second bail application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 for grant of bail as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 313/2023, registered at Police Station- Mulmula District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 363, 366, 376(2)(n), 376(3) of Indian Penal Code and Section 4 and 6 of POCSO Act. 2. Brief facts of this case is that, the father of the prosecutrix lodged a missing complaint on 23.11.2023 stating that on 2 17.11.2023 his minor daughter/prosecutrix was abducted by an unknown person. On the report being lodged by the father of the prosecutrix an FIR was registered against an unknown person for the offence punishable under Section 363 of IPC. During the investigation prosecutrix was recovered from the possession of the applicant on 13.06.2024. Thereafter, on the basis of the statement of the prosecutrix, the police had arrested the applicant. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that, the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the alleged crime, he has not committed any offence as alleged against him. He also contended that the applicant is in jail since 13.06.2024 and till date not a single witness have been examined before the learned Trial Court. The matter was fixed before the learned trial Court for statement of the prosecutrix, that date prosecutrix has not appeared, but the applicant has filed bail application, she appeared and raised objection. The trial would take a considerable time to conclude. Therefore, he pleads to allow the bail application of the applicant in the interest of justice. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application submitted by the applicant. 3 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the case and other materials available on record. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and further considering the nature of offence, and seriousness of the crime particularly to the fact that at the time of incident the prosecutrix was only 15 years of age. The applicant made physical relation with her and due to which the prosecutrix who was minor at the time of incident got pregnant. Moreover charge sheet has already been filed and some of the material evidence have already examined before the Trial Court. Hence, this court is not inclined to allow the bail application of the present applicant. 7. Accordingly, the present miscellaneous criminal appeal stands rejected. 8. However, the concerned trial Court is directed to make all endeavors to conclude the trial as early as possible, if no legal impediment. 9. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information and compliance forthwith. sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge alfiza