1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 10233 of 2025 Suresh Manikpuri S/o Amrit Manikpuri Aged About 21 Years R/o Basgaon, PS- Kondagaon, District Kondagaon (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Benur, Dist. Narayanpur (Chhattisgarh) ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Aman Pandey, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Govt. Advocate, with Mr. Rishi Raj Pithawa, Dy. Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order On Board 06.01.2026 1. The victim along with her mother appeared before this Court today through virtual mode from the concerned DLSA and expressed their no-objection in granting bail to the applicant. 2. This is the second bail application filed u/s 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime BHOLA NATH KHATAI Digitally signed by BHOLA NATH KHATAI Date: 2026.01.07 14:35:46 +0530 2 No.01/2025 registered at Police Station Benur, District Narayanpur (CG) for the offence punishable under Sections 137, 64 of BNS and Sections 4 & 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012. 3. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected on merit vide order dated 13.06.2025 passed in MCRC No.3064/2025. 4. As per the prosecution case, the allegation against the present applicant is that knowing fully well that the victim was a minor, he forcibly committed sexual intercourse with her on the pretext of marriage. Subsequently, on the report being made in this regard, the applicant was arrested on 22.02.2025. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He submits that the prosecutrix was major at the time of incident as her date of birth is not proved and she was a consenting party. He submits that the applicant is in jail since 22.02.2025, there are total 18 witnesses out of which only 11 witnesses have been examined till date and there is no likelihood of the trial to be concluded at the earliest, therefore, considering all these facts, the applicant may be released on bail. 6. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, opposing the bail application submits that the victim was minor at the time of incident, she has supported the case of prosecution in her court statement and considering the nature of offence, the applicant does not deserve to be released on bail. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 3 8. Taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the nature and gravity of offence and the material collected and available on record against the applicant, this Court is not inclined to release the applicant on bail. 9. Accordingly, the present bail application stands rejected. 10. However, considering it to be an exceptional case as the applicant is in jail since 22.02.2025 i.e. about 11 months, the Trial Court is directed to ensure that the trial is concluded as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 11. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) JUDGE Khatai