1 2025:CGHC:46591 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 6543 of 2025 Manoj Kumar Tiwari S/o Rudraprasad Tiwari, Aged About 40 Years R/o Ward No. 1, Mauhari, Police Station Bijuri, District Anuppur, Madhya Pradesh. Current Address- Chainpur, Police Station City Kotwali, Manendragarh, District M.C.B. Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station- Manendragarh, District M.C.B. (C.G. … Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Amishan Hussain, Advocate For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Sakib Khan, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 11.09.2025 1. This is the First bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 392/2022 registered at Police Station – Manendragarh, District M.C.B. (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376 & 506 of IPC and Section 4 of POCSO Act 2012. 2. As per the prosecution's case, the complainant is a tenant of the VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2025.09.15 11:36:40 +0530 2 present applicant and used to reside at the said rented house from last two years with her family. It has been alleged that on dated 17.10.2022 the applicant came to complainant's house at near about 4 PM and asked her to come along with him to purchase goat, on being agreed the complainant went along with the Applicant and thereafter the Applicant took complainant to Jhagrakhand and thereafter he took her to Gram Rokda where he committed rape and then again dropped back the complainant to her house on the very next morning near about 7 AM. That on the said allegation the FIR has been lodged against the applicant bearing FIR no. 392/2022 registered at police station Manendragarh, District M.C.B, Chhattisgarh for alleged offence under section 363, 366, 376, and 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1861), and under section 4 of POCSO Act. 2012. ANNEXURE A/3 is the copy of FIR no. 392/2022. 3. The applicant submits that he has been falsely implicated in the present case due to a long-standing rent dispute and prior animosity with the complainant’s family, which provides a strong motive for false allegations. He has not committed any offence punishable with death or life imprisonment and has been arrested merely on the basis of the complainant’s statement, despite material contradictions between the FIR and depositions of prosecution witnesses. The complainant was a major at the time of the alleged incident, rendering the provisions of the POCSO Act inapplicable, and the MLC report shows no signs of injury, further weakening the prosecution’s case. The applicant has always shared a cordial, father-daughter–like relationship with the complainant, and the prosecution has failed to adduce cogent evidence to establish the charges under Sections 363, 366, 376, and 3 506 IPC or Section 4 of the POCSO Act. The allegations are fabricated, motivated by personal vendetta, and unsupported by reliable evidence. The applicant is a permanent resident, has family responsibilities as the sole breadwinner, and has no likelihood of absconding. Considering the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that bail is the rule and jail is an exception, and prolonged pre-trial detention violates Article 21, the applicant prays for his release on bail, undertaking to comply with any conditions imposed by this Hon’ble Court, therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the present applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application of the present applicant and submits that the applicant/accused forcefully committed rape. The trial is in progress and the evidence of prosecution witnesses is being recorded, therefore, the bail application of the present applicant is entitled to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of X Vs. State of Rajasthan and another in Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 13378 of 2024 decided on 27-11-2024 has observed in the said order that.- "14. Ordinarily in serious offences like rape, murder, dacoity, etc., once the trial commences and the prosecution starts examining its witnesses, the Court be it the Trial Court or the High Court should be loath in entertaining the bail application of the accused." 15. Over a period of time, we have noticed two things, i.e., (i) either bail is granted after the charge is framed and just before the victim is to be examined by the 4 prosecution before the trial court, or (ii) bail is granted once the recording of the oral evidence of the victim is complete by looking into some discrepancies here or there in the deposition and thereby testing the credibility of the victim.” 16. We are of the view that the aforesaid is not a correct practice that the Courts below should adopt. Once the trial commences, it should be allowed to reach to its final conclusion which may either result in the conviction of the accused or acquittal of the accused. The moment the High Court exercises its discretion in favour of the accused and orders release of the accused on bail by looking into the deposition of the victim, it will have its own impact on the pending trial when it comes to appreciating the oral evidence of the victim. It is only in the event if the trial gets unduly delayed and that too for no fault on the part of the accused, the Court may be justified in ordering his release on bail on the ground that right of the accused to have a speedy trial has been infringed." 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the nature of the dispute, and the material available in the case diary, it appears that the present applicant forcibly committed rape upon the victim. The trial is in progress and the evidence of prosecution witnesses is being recorded. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant on bail. 8. Accordingly, the first bail application of the applicants – Manoj Kumar Tiwari, involved in Crime No. 392/2022 registered at Police Station – Manendragarh, District M.C.B. (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376 & 506 of IPC and Section 4 of POCSO 5 Act 2012, is rejected. 9. However, this Court hopes and trusts that the trial Court shall make an earnest endeavour to conclude the trial expeditiously within a period of three months of receipt of this order in accordance with law, if there is no legal impediment. 10. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice vaibhav