1 2025:CGHC:43016 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 6315 of 2025 1 - Abhinav Singh Dhruv S/o Arjun Singh Dhruv, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Barganva Sakulpara, Thana Akaltara, District- Janjgir Champa (C.G.). ... Applicant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Police Station - Akaltara, District- Janjgir- Champa (C.G.). ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. V. K. Pandey, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Vivek Sharma, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board 25 / 08 / 2025 1. The accused/applicant has moved this first bail application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 for releasing her on regular bail during trial in connection with Crime No. 493/2024 registered at Police Station – Akaltara, District – Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 137(2), 87, 64(1) of BNS and Section 4, 6 of POCSO Act. SOURABH PATEL Digitally signed by SOURABH PATEL Date: 2025.08.25 17:41:31 +0530 2 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 18.10.2024, the father of the victim lodged a missing report at the Akaltara police station in Janjgir-Champa district, stating that his daughter had gone to their old village house on 15.10.2024, at about 5:30 pm and did not return home. Subsequently, the police registered an FIR against an unknown person and during the investigation, the victim was recovered from the possession of the present applicant. In her statement, she stated that the applicant has committed forcefully sexual intercourse with her. The applicant/accused was arrested, and offences under Sections 137(2), 87, and 64(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Sections 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act were registered against him. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case, with no connection to the alleged offence. It is further submitted that there was a love affair between the victim and the applicant, the victim voluntarily accompanied the applicant and she was a consenting party, therefore, no offence is made out against the appellant. The applicant has no criminal antecedents, and has been in jail since 22.10.2024. There is no likelihood of his case being decided in the near future, therefore, the present applicant may be released on bail. 3 4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposed the bail application, submitting that the victim was a minor at the time of the incident and she was recovered from the possession of the present applicant. Out of a total of 21 witnesses, only 3 have been examined till date, therefore, at this stage, the applicant may not be released on bail. 5. Today, victim along with her father appeared virtually from the concerned DLSA and raised her objection in granting 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 against the applicant, further considering the fact that out of 21 witnesses, only 03 have been examined till date, and and some important witnesses are still remaining for examination, at this stage, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail. 8. Accordingly, the bail application filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 is rejected. 9. However, considering the fact that the applicant is in jail since 22.10.2024 about 10 months 03 days. It is an exceptional case, therefore, concerned trial Court is directed to expedite the trial as early as possible preferably within a period of 04 months. 4 10. 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 Sourabh P.