1 2025:CGHC:44368 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 6408 of 2025 1 - Sumit Lakra S/o Shri Abner Lakra Aged About 23 Years R/o Village- Kersai Siharjori, Police Outpost- Uparkachhar, Police Station- Tapkara, District- Jashpur C.G. --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station- Tapkara, District- Jashpur C.G. ---Non-applicants For applicants : Mr. Rishi Rahul Soni, Advocate For-Non-applicants : Mr. Rishabh Bisen, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 01/09/2025 1. The applicants has preferred this Second Bail Application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. in connection with Crime No. 62/2024, registered at Police Station Tapkara Jashpur Chhattisgarh for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366(A), 376(3) of IPC and 5 & 6 of POCSO Act. 2. Earlier bail application was dismissed for want of prosecution on 24.02.2025 in MCRC No. 386/2025. Digitally signed by JYOTI JHA Date: 2025.09.03 10:52:55 +0530 2 3. Today, victim along with her mother appeared through DSLA Jashpur and raised objection in grant of bail to the applicant. 4. The prosecution story in brief is that in November 2023, when the victim was returning from Singibahar Mela, she came in contact with the applicant (the accused) and allegedly the applicant (the accused) gave his mobile number to the victim and asked her to make call and then on third day the victim made a call to the applicant (the accused) and at that time the applicant (the accused) told that he loved the victim and would marry her. It is further alleged that on 18.12.2023 at about 08:00 P.M., the applicant (the accused) called the victim near tamarind tree and made sexual relation with her forcefully and thereafter the applicant (the accused) would call the victim time to time and would make sexual relation with her. It is further alleged that on 22.05.2024, the applicant (the accused) took the victim towards forest side and kept her with him in forest during the period from 23.05.2024 to 24.05.2024 and then on 25.05.2024 the applicant (the accused) took the victim to Kunkuri and kept her in forest for a day and night and then on 26.05.2024 he took the victim to Kansabel and kept her in tenement till 30.05.2024 and in between the applicant (the accused) had been making sexual relation with her. Initially, FIR was registered for the offence punishable under section 363 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 and after completion of investigation final report has been submitted for the offence punishable under section 363, 366, 376, 376(2)(n), 366 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 and under section 4 & 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act 2012. 5. It was argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the second 3 bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant only on the ground of detention of applicant as the applicant is languishing in jail since 31.05.2024. The prosecutrix lived with the accused for 7-8 days but she has not raised any objection against sexual intercourse and has not shouted or not complaint to anyone during travelling. Three witnesses have been examined, so looking to the detention period of applicant, he prays for considering the case of the applicant for grant of bail. 6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application and submits that there is ample evidence on record to connect the applicant with commission of the offence. For which, the applicant has not given any plausible explanation, therefore, his bail application is liable to be dismissed. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary produced by the learned counsel for the State. 8. It is admitted fact that at the time of incident, the victim was approximately 15 years and 4 months and it is case of abduction of rape with the minor victim, further MLC report shows that hymen of the prosecutrix is ruptured, however there is no external injury found on the body of the victim. The chart sheet has been filed and charges were framed by the Trial Court against the applicant. Moreover, as per contention of the learned counsel for the applicant, three witnesses have been examined before the Trial Court. 9. Considering the nature and gravity of the offence and further considering the fact of the case, I do not find any change of 4 circumstances to reconsider this repeat application for grant of bail and to release the applicant on bail, therefore, at this stage, the aforesaid bail application of applicant is rejected. 10. However, this Court hope and trust that the trial Court shall make an earnest endeavour to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible, if there is no legal impediment. 11. Office is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Jyoti