1 2025:CGHC:40497 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 5892 of 2025 Seva Ram Dheemar S/o Thanwar Dheemar Aged About 66 Years R/o Village House No. 465 Ward No. 15, Karanja Bhilai District- Durg Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer Outpost Jewra Sirsa ( Ps Pulgaon ), District- Durg Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Purnendra Khichariya, Adv. For Respondent/State : Mr. Vivek Sharma, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order On Board 12/08/2025 1. There are two victims in this case and they appeared virtually along with her mother from concerned DLSA before this Court today and recorded ‘objection’ in granting bail to the applicant. 2. The applicant has preferred this 1st bail application under Section 483 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita Act 2023 for grant of regular bail as he is arrested in connection with crime No.252/2025, registered at Police Outpost – Sirsa, Police Station – Pulgaon, District- Durg (C.G.) for offence punishable under Sections 74 & 76 of the BNS and Sections 10 & 12 of the POCSO Act, 2012. 3. The prosecution story, in short, is that on 04.07.2025, mother of the victims lodged a report in concerned Police Station stating that on SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Digitally signed by SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Date: 2025.08.13 12:07:03 +0530 2 03.07.2025, the applicant had called her minor daughters aged about 15 years and 17 years to his house and committed aggravated sexual assault and sexual harassment with them. Based on above, offence has been registered against the applicant. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the crime in question. He further submits that a pre-existing dispute over water between the applicant and the victims' mother may have led to the false allegations. There is no eye-witness in this case. He lastly submits that the applicant is aged about 64 years and is in jail since 05.07.2025, the charge-sheet has not been filed till date and the trial is likely to take some time to be finalized, therefore, it is prayed that the applicant may be enlarged on bail. 5. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the bail application and submits that at the time of incident, the victims were minor. One of the victims is mentally challenged. In their statements recorded under Section 183 of BNSS, the victims supported the case of prosecution. Therefore, looking to the nature of offence, the applicant may not be released on bail. 6. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, evidence collected by the prosecution against the applicant, the age of the victims, the nature of offence and the fact that the charge-sheet has not been filed, at this stage, without further commenting on merits of the case, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail. 8. Accordingly, the bail application is Rejected. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Shubham