1 2025:CGHC:38801 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 5022 of 2025 • Hitesh Das @ Chhotu S/o Shri Jethu Das Aged About 23 Years R/o Village Chhinnd, P.S. Sarangarh, District : Sarangarh-Bilaigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant. versus • State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Basna, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For applicant. : Mr. Jitendra Nath Nande, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Ajay Kumarani, Panel Lawyer (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas) Order on Board 05/08/2025 1. The applicant has preferred this second bail application under Section 483 of Cr.P.C., for grant of regular bail as he has been arrested on 22-7-2023 in connection with Crime No. 395 of 2023 registered at Police Station – Basna, District Mahasamund (CG) for alleged commission of offences under Sections 363, 366, 376 of IPC, Sections 4 & 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC & ST 2 (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Second bail application of the applicant was dismissed as withdrawn by order dated 21-8-2024 passed by this Court. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 22-7-2023 at about 4.00 pm the complainant who is mother of the victim had lodged a missing report No 70 of 2023 on 22-7-2023 at Police Station Basna stating therein that her minor daughter who is 14 years old and minor had left from the house on 21-7-2023 and did not turn up to the house. Though they searched her, but she was not found. It is also case of the prosecution thar on the basis of the missing report, initially offence under Section 363 of IPC was registered under Crime No. 395 of 2023 and during investigation victim was found with the present applicant at Bus Stand, Basna. The Police Officials upon investigation found that the present applicant abducted the victim on the pretext of marriage and made sexual relation with her. Thereafter offkence under Section 366, 376 of IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been added against the applicant. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant has been falsely implicated and he has not committed any offence. He would further submit that the victim was a consenting party. He would further submit that out of 19 witnesses, 10 witnesses have been examined, even the victim has not supported the case of prosecution and even the Doctor PW/10 who has also been examined before the trial Court has also not given exact opinion about forcible sexual intercourse and no injury on the body of the victim has been found by the Doctor who examined her. He would further submit that FSL report is also negative, the applicant is in jail since 22-7-2023 whereby he is in custody more than two years and trial is likely to take sometime, despite issuance of notice other witnesses are not appearing before the trial Court, therefore, delay has been caused and there is no fault on the part of the applicant, as such the applicant may be granted bail. 3 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposing the aforesaid submissions would submit that the victim is minor girl and even if she is a consenting party, there is no significance in the eye of law. Thus, he would further submit that there is sufficient evidence brought on record by the prosecution against the applicant and would pray for dismissal of the bail application. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, further considering the statement of the victim as well as the doctor who examined the victim and also the fact that the applicant is in jail since 22-7-2023 whereby he is in jail more than 2 years, and also further considering the fact that out of 19 witnesses, 10 witnesses have been examined, trial will take for some time and without commenting into merit of the case, I am inclined to grant bail to the applicant. 7. Accordingly, the application is allowed. It is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- along with one surety for the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the IPC. 4 (iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. Certified copy as per rules. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) JUDGE Raju RAVVA SATYANARAYANA RAJU Digitally signed by RAVVA SATYANARAYANA RAJU Date: 2025.08.05 19:09:24 +0530