1 2025:CGHC:9271 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 546 of 2025 1 - Shankar Mushhar S/o Munar Mushar Aged About 25 Years R/o Ward No. 13, Jenua, P.S. Thakhara Dist. West Champaran, Madhubani (Bihar). ... Applicant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. - Saraypali, Dist. - Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Sumit Singh, Advocate For Respondent/State : Ms. Sunita Sahu, PL (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board 21.02.2025 The applicant has filed this bail application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrrik Suraksha Sanhita for grant of regular bail as he is in custody in connection with Crime No. 107/2022 registered at police station Saraipali District Mahasamund (CG) for the offence punishable under Sections 376, of the IPC and Sections 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. 2 2. Prosecution case in brief is that a written report was lodged by the complainant, mother of the prosecutrix alleging that the appicant had committed sexual intercourse with her minor daughter aged about 13 years against her will. It is alleged that when the victim went to the temple Ghanteshwari, the applicant forcibly took her to his room and committed rape on her. On the basis of the said report, the applicant was arrested. 4. Contention of the counsel for the applicant is that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the crime in question. He further submits that the incident took place on 11.04.2022 and the FIR has been lodged on 15.04.2022 and no explanation has been given by the prosecution. He submits that in th MLC report, there is no external injury found on the body of the prosecutrix and the doctor has opined that there is no definite opinion of commission of sexual assault. there is no document with regard to the age of the prosecutrix to prove her actual age. He submits that the prosecution has conducted the MLC of the prosecutrix and there was no internal or external injury found on the body of the victim. Lastly, he submits that the applicant is in jail since 16.04.2022, charge sheet has been filed and the trial is likely to take some time, he is ready and willing to comply with any of the conditions which may be imposed upon him and thus, it is submitted that the application be allowed and the applicant be released on bail. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent/State, on the other hand, has opposed the bail application and submits that the prosecutrix was minor aged about 13 years at the time of incident and therefore the applicant may not be granted bail. 6. Victim and her mother appeared through the concerned DLSA and they had raised objection if the applicant is released on bail. 3 7. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. On due consideration of the rival submissions, from the records it prima facie appears that the applicant had forcefully committed rape on the prosecutrix who is aged about 13 years therefore looking to the nature of the offence, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail. Accordingly, his bail application is rejected. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge SUGUNA DUBEY Digitally signed by SUGUNA DUBEY Date: 2025.02.24 15:14:40 +0530