1 2025:CGHC:35583 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 5425 of 2025 1 - Shivlal Rajput S/o Ramsingh Rajput, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Kharsola, P.S. Sargaon, District Mungeli (C.G.). ... Applicant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, P.S. Pathariya, District Mungeli (C.G.). ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Suresh Kumar Verma, Advocate. For State/Respondent : Ms. Sunita Manikpuri, Dy.G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board 23/07/2025 1. This is the 02nd Bail Application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 243/2023 registered at Police Station -Pathariya, District Mungeli (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366, 372(2)(n) of IPC and Section 4, 6 of POCSO Act, 2012. 2. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected on merits SOURABH PATEL Digitally signed by SOURABH PATEL Date: 2025.07.24 11:29:05 +0530 2 by this Court on 19.06.2025 in MCRC No.3821/2025. 3. The prosecution version is that on 20.09.2023 the mother of victim has lodged a written report that on 18.09.2023 at around 7.00 pm her daughter/victim had gone somewhere else without informing anyone at home and on searching the whereabouts of the girl, she came to know that some unknown person had allured and kidnapped the minor girl, on which, initially offence u/s 363 IPC was registered against the unknown person. Thereafter, during investigation when the girl was presented at the Police Station by the mother, she was recovered from her mother and on enquiry, the girl has stated that the accused took her away to Bilaspur, Raipur, Pune, Maharashtra and kept her with him and continuously subjected her physical relations, due to which, she became pregnant and gave birth to a son. Thus on the basis of girl's statement, further offences u/s 366, 376(2)(n) and Section 4 & 6 have been added. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case, with no connection to the alleged offence. It is further submitted that the victim had voluntarily accompanied the applicant and in Pune, the applicant performed marriage with her and out of their wedlock, one child was born. The victim and mother have turned hostile upon examination. The applicant has no criminal antecedents and has been in jail since 21.04.2025 and the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude. Therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the applicant. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposed the 3 bail application, submitting that the victim was minor at the time of incident, and out of 16 witnesses, only 02 have been examined till date and some important witnesses are yet to be examined, therefore, at this stage, he may not be enlarged on bail. 6. Today, victim along with her child and mother appeared in person before this Court and raised her no objection in granting bail to the applicant. 7. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the offence, and also taking into account the victim and her mother turned hostile before the trail Court and today also appeared in person and raised no objection in granting bail to the applicant, the applicant is in jail since 21.04.2025, and out of 16 witnesses only 02 have been examined and the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude, therefore, I find it appropriate to release the applicant on bail. 9. Accordingly, the application is allowed and it is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court. Applicant is directed to appear before the trial Court on each and every date to be given to him by the said Court till disposal of the trial. It is made clear that any observation made by this Court in this order shall not affect the trial of the case. 4 10. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Sourabh P.