1 2025:CGHC:33390 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 4916 of 2025 1 - Balchand S/o Munnalal Aged About 21 Years Caste - Dhobi, R/o Village Pakni, P.S. Chandora, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Chandora, District Surajpur (C.G.). ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Manish Nigam, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Pranjal Shukla, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board 16 / 07 / 2025 1. The accused/applicant has moved this first bail application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 for releasing him on regular bail during trial in connection with Crime No. 21/2025 registered at Police Station – Chandora, District – Surajpur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(n) of IPC and Section 4/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2025.07.16 17:52:53 +0530 2 2. As per the prosecution’s case, on 18.03.2025, the complainant, mother of the victim, lodged a report to the concerned police station alleging therein that the appellant, Balchand Rajak of their village, allured her minor girl and, on the pretext of marriage, committed physical abuse with her from 07.07.2022. It is also alleged that the applicant committed the same offence with her minor girl on 13.02.2025 too. Based on this, offence has been registered against the present applicant. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. He also submits that there is a delay of more than 3 years in lodging the FIR, as the incident is of 07.07.2022, and the FIR was lodged on 18.03.2025 by the mother of the victim. The victim had a love affair with the present applicant, and the victim does not support the case of the prosecution in her statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. The applicant is in jail since 18.03.2025, and there is no likelihood of his case being decided in the near future; therefore, the present applicant may be released on bail. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application and submits that as per the admission register of the school of the victim, the date of birth of the victim is 15.07.2007, meaning thereby the victim was about 3 15 years old at the time of the offence. He further submits that the applicant committed a heinous offence with the minor girl; therefore, at this stage, he may not be enlarged on bail. 5. The victim along with her mother-in-law, appeared through video conferencing from the concerned DLSA and recorded no objection to grant bail to the applicant. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, particularly looking to the material available on record and the evidence collected by the prosecution against the applicant, further considering the grievousness of the offence, and the trial is not commenced yet, at this stage, without commenting on the merits of the case, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail. Accordingly, the bail application filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023, is rejected. 8. Office is directed to sent a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge H.L. Sahu