1 2025:CGHC:27036 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 4789 of 2025 1 - Suddhu @ Sudu S/o Late Budry Kashyap Aged About 60 Years Caste - Mahara, R/o Karrekot P.S. Mardoom, District Bastar (C.G.) ... Applicant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Mardoom, District Bastar (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Vikash A. Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Hariom Rai, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 23.06.2025 1. This is the First bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant arrested in connection with Crime No. 04/2025 registered at Police Station – Mardoom, District – Bastar (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 64(1), 351(2) & 296 of BNS. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the rejection order 2 upon receiving the written complaint of the prosecutrix, P.S Mardoom Distt. Bastar, lodged F.I.R. against present applicant that on 08/01/2025 she went to meet her sister to Karlaghutkudi Para she found that her sister door is locked thereafter she went to her aunt house who reside nearby her sister home and when she returned to her home at about 07.30 PM when she reached near Lankanath Puliya present applicant meet with her and after some discussuion present applicant caught her hand and took her nearby field and made forcefully sexual relation with her Upon receiving such complaint F.I.R. has been lodged and during the investigation applicant was arrested. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. He submits that prosecutrix is a major lady and consenting party, she had affair with the applicant and when this fact came to knowledge of prosecutrix husband he pressurized her to lodged FIR against the present applicant. He further submits that there was some quarrel took place between the husband of the prosecutrix and the applicant with respect to a cock- fight in the market, on account of which, the prosecutrix has been falsely implicated in the present case thereafter FIR has been lodged by the prosecutrix. He also submits that the present applicant is in jail since 23.01.2025 and conclusion of the trial may take some time, therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the present applicant. 3 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel, opposes the bail application and submits that looking to the conduct of the applicant, he is not entitled for grant of regular bail. Thus, the bail application deserves to be rejected. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of dispute and material available in the case diary, and specially considering the argument raised on behalf of the applicant that since there was some quarrel took place between the applicant and the husband of the prosecutrix with regard to cock-fight, the prosecutrix falsely implicated the applicant herein, but on a specific query from the Court as to where the said defence has been taken by the counsel for the applicant, he drew the attention towards Para-f of the bail application, which reads as under: “f. That, husband of prosecutrix and present applicant have a fight in the market due to affair of prosecutrix and present applicant therefore husband of the proecutrix pressurized her to lodged false complaint against the present applicant” A bare perusal of the above quoted para would show that there was an affair between the prosecutrix and the applicant herein, which is altogether a different story. Thus, considering the statement of the victim/prosecutrix recorded 4 under Section 183 of BNSS, where she has levelled the allegation of rape against the applicant, this Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant on bail. 7. Accordingly, this second bail application of applicant – Suddhu @ Sudu involved in Crime No. 04/2025 registered at Police Station – Mardoom, District – Bastar (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 64(1), 351(2) & 296 of BNS, is rejected at this stage. 8. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 9. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. sd/-Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice vaishali