1 2025:CGHC:44077 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 5874 of 2025 1 - Kailash Barle S/o Late Babu Lal Barle Aged About 40 Years R/o Near Gandhi Chowk, Sejbahar, Police Station Dunda, District- Raipur, C.G. ... Applicant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station- Fingeshwar District- Gariyaband, C.G. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Mohammad Afroz Athar, Adv. through V.C. For State : Mr. H.A.P.S. Bhatia, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board 29/08/2025 1. This is the second 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. 88/2025 registered at Police Station Fingeshwar, District Gariyaband (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 137(2), 142, 64(1), 69, Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2025.09.01 10:13:22 +0530 2 87 of BNS, 2023 and Sections 4, 6 r/w Section 17 of POCSO Act. 2. As per the prosecution’s case, the father of the victim lodged a report at police station Fingeshwar, alleging that his minor daughter was missing since 06.04.2025. Based on this, an offence under Section 137(2) of the BNS was registered against unknown persons. During the investigation, the victim was recovered from the custody of the co-accused, Leelram Banjare (brother-in-law (lkyk) of the applicant). The allegation against the present applicant is that he allowed the co-accused Leelaram Banjare and the victim to stay in his house in Bhopal. Based on this, offence has been registered against the present applicant. 3. The first bail application of the applicant was dismissed on merit on 08.07.2025 in MCRC No. 3670/2025. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that after the rejection of the first bail application, the victim, the father of the victim and the teacher have been examined before the Court, who turned hostile and do not support the case of the prosecution. The main accused is Leelaram Banjare (lkyk of the applicant), and there is only allegation against the present applicant is that he allowed Leelaram Banjare and 3 the victim to stay in his house. In the statement of the victim recorded before the Court, there is no allegation of instigation by the present applicant. The applicant is in jail since 22.04.2025; only 3 out of 22 listed witnesses have been examined till date, and the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude. Therefore, he prays for the grant of regular bail to the applicant. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposed the bail application and submitted that the victim has supported the case of the prosecution in her statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C.; therefore, at this stage, he may not be enlarged on bail. 6. The victim along with her father, appeared through video conferencing from the concerned DLSA and raised their objection to grant 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 and also considering the fact that after dismissal of the first bail application, out of 22 listed witnesses, the victim and the father of the victim have been examined before the trial Court, the applicant is in custody since 22.04.2025, and the trial is likely to take considerable time, therefore, at this stage, without commenting on merits of the case, I am 4 inclined 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. The 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. 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 H.L. Sahu