1 2025:CGHC:49080 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 6897 of 2025 1 - Chandan Patel S/o Dhanesh Ram Patel Aged About 22 Years R/o Mandir Khilora, P.S.- Dhamdha, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh. --- Applicant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S.- Ghumka, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Shobhit Koshta, Adv. For Respondent/State : Mr. Sachchidanand Yadav, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board 24 / 09 / 2025 1. The accused/applicant has moved this second bail application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 for releasing him on regular bail during trial in connection with Crime No. 167/2024 registered at Police Station – Ghumka, District – Rajnandgaon (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 63(A), 63(D)(iii), 64, 351(2) of BNS and Sections 4, 5(l) and 6 of POCSO Act. Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2025.09.25 10:48:24 +0530 2 2. As per the prosecution’s case, it is alleged against the applicant that on 09.09.2024 at about 12:00 O’clock, the applicant/accused threatened the minor victim and forcefully committed sexual intercourse with her. Based on this offence has been registered against the present applicant along with another co-accused person. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. He next submits that, as per the prosecution's case, the date of the offence is 09.09.2024, whereas the FIR was lodged on 29.11.2024 with a delay of 80 days. He further submits that there is no internal or external injury was found in the medical report of the victim, which shows that the alleged offence has not been committed against her. He also submits that the applicant is in jail since 30.11.2024, and there is no likelihood of his case being decided in the near future, therefore, the present applicant may be released on bail. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application and submits that the applicant committed a heinous offence with a minor girl, and the victim has supported the case of the prosecution in her statement before the Court. He also submits that there are 14 listed witnesses in this case and only 2 witnesses i.e. the victim and her mother, have been examined, and some important witnesses are still remain to be examined; therefore, at this stage, he may not be enlarged on bail. 5. The victim along with her mother appeared through video conferencing from the concerned DLSA and raised their objection to grant bail to the applicant. 3 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, the evidence collected by the prosecution against the applicant and the gravity of the offence, at this stage, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail. Accordingly, the bail application filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023, is rejected. 8. However, looking to the fact that the applicant is in jail since 30.11.2024, the concerned trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and to ensure that the trial is concluded as expeditiously as possible. 9. 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 H.L. Sahu