1 / 3 2025:CGHC:1687 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 5906 of 2024 1 - Baljeet Choudhary S/o Shri Charan Choudhary, Aged About 35 Years R/o Village- Binkara, Thana-Lakhanpur, District-Surguja (C.G.) --- Applicant versus 1 – State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station- Lakhanpur, District-Surguja (C.G.) --- Respondent MCRC No. 5955 of 2024 1 - Sukhnath S/o Shri Bandhan Aged About 22 Years By Caste- Chamar, R/o Village- Bakalo, Thana- Premnagar, District- Surajpur, C.G. ---Applicant Versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station- Lakhanpur, District- Surguja, C.G. -- Respondent For Applicants : Mr. Anuj Kumar Pandey, Advocate appears on behalf of Mr. Rajendra Patel, Advocate For State : Ms. Pragya Shrivastava, Dy. GA (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board 10/01/2025 ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA Date: 2025.01.14 13:42:27 +0530 2 / 3 1. Since both these bail applications are arising out of the same incident, therefore, they are being heard and decided together by this common order. 2. M.Cr.C. No.5906 of 2024 is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Shuraksha Sanhita for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested on 21/04/2024 in connection with Crime No. 85/2024, registered at Police Station Lakhanpur, District Surguja, C.G. for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376(2) (n) of the IPC and Section 05 (1) r/w Section 06 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. 3. M.Cr.C. No.5955 of 2024 is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Shuraksha Sanhita for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested on 21/04/2024 in connection with Crime No. 86/2024, registered at Police Station Lakhanpur, District Surguja, C.G. for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376(2) (n) of the IPC and Section 05 (1) r/w Section 06 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. 4. As per the prosecution case the complainants lodged two separate reports alleging that the victims have been missing for 2-3 days and they searched for their daughters and when they did not find the daughters, reports were made, therefore, during investigation, the victim girls were recovered from the possession of the applicants and it was also revealed that the applicants have committed forceful intercourse with the girls. Thereafter, the applicants were arrested. 3 / 3 5. Learned counsel for the applicants would submit that the prosecutrix herself have left the house for going to fare. He would next contend that the victims have already been examined before the trial Court and they have not supported the case of the prosecution. He would next contend that no material has been produced to prove the age of the victim below 18 years and during the Court statement the parents of the prosecutrix have mentioned the age to be 20 years. In view of this no offence is made out against the applicants, therefore, the applicants may be released on bail. 6. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bail. 7. I have learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 8. Perusal of the documents would show that there is allegation of taking away two minor girls from the lawful custody of the parents without their authority and the way the offence has been committed, the offence appears to be of serious nature. Therefore, considering the entire facts & circumstances of the case and looking the seriousness and gravity of the offence, I am not inclined to release the applicants on bail. 9. Accordingly, both the bail applications are rejected. SD/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE ashu