1 2025:CGHC:38466 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRC No. 4833 of 2025 Mitthu Ram Ravi S/o Ram Shubhag Ram Aged About 32 Years R/o Sidhma Harijanpara, Out Post- Bariyo, Police Station- Rajpur, District - Balrampur, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station- Kotwali, Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Sanjay Pathak, Advocate For Respondent/State : Ms. Upasana Mehta, PL. For Objector : Ms. Seema Singh, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 04/08/2025 1. This is first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 for grant of regular bail to applicant, who has been arrested in connection with Crime No.742/2024, registered at PS - Kotwali Ambikapur, District- Surguja (Chhattisgarh), for offence punishable under Sections 137(2), 87, 64(2)(e), 55, 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2) of BNS and Section 4 & 6 of the POCSO Act. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that parents of the victim/prosecutrix has lodged missing report to the concerned Police Station, based upon which, FIR was registered and during course of investigation, prosecutrix 2 was recovered. Her statement was recorded in which she stated that present applicant has allured her on the pretext of marriage and, thereafter, committed forceful sexual intercourse with her on several occasions, based upon her statement, appellant was arrested for the aforementioned crime/offence. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in this case, he has not committed any offence as alleged against him. Victim in her evidence has not made any allegation against the present applicant. There is no specific evidence/material available which shows that applicant has committed the alleged offence/crime. Applicant is in jail since 19.11.2024, conclusion of trial may take some time, hence, applicant may be released on bail. 4. Per contra, learned State Counsel as well as learned counsel for the Objector opposing the bail application of the applicant and would submit that applicant took the minor victim (below 16 years of age) to the rented accommodation and, thereafter, on the pretext of marriage committed forceful sexual intercourse with her on several occasions. They further pointed out that applicant is having previous criminal antecedent for offence under the SC/ST Act & POCSO Act. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. Considering facts of the case, nature of allegations, submission of learned counsel for the parties, evidence of the victim, particularly the submission that the applicant took the minor victim (below 16 years of age) to the rented accommodation and, thereafter, on the pretext of marriage committed forceful sexual intercourse with her on several occasions, further considering that applicant is having previous criminal antecedent for offence under the SC/ST Act & POCSO Act, I am not inclined to allow this bail application. 3 7. Accordingly, bail application is hereby rejected. However, trial Court concerned is directed to expedite the trial, as early as possible, if there is no legal impediment. Certified copy as per rules. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge J.