1 2025:CGHC:50464 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 7106 of 2025 Arun Behera S/o Dolamani Behera Aged About 33 Years R/o Village Mohgaon, Post Toresinha, Police Station Balouda, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House OfÏcer, Police Of Police Station Balouda, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh ---- Non-Applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Raghvendra Pradhan, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 09.10.2025 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail application under Section 483 of BNSS for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No.53/2025, registered at Police Station Balouda, District – Mahasamund (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 64(1) and 351(3) of BNS 2023. KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 2. The prosecution story in brief, is that on 29-06-2025 at about 7.30 PM, the applicant told the victim that his mother is calling her in his home and when the victim came the house of applicant, the applicant taken the victim in the toilet room and committed sexual intercourse with her forcibly and also told the victim if the matter will be disclosed anybody, then he will kill her. Based upon such, the police has registered the crime and filed the charge sheet before the concerned Court against the applicant. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended that the father of the applicant had earlier given a statement as a witness against the father of the victim, due to which the present false case has been registered out of previous enmity. It is further submitted that there are material contradictions in the version of the victim. In the written FIR, the victim stated that the alleged incident of rape took place in the toilet, whereas in her statement under Section 161 of the CrPC, she has changed her version and stated that the incident occurred in the cow shed, which creates serious doubt on the veracity of the prosecution story. Moreover, in the FIR, the victim has stated that she was sitting with her sister Pooja when the applicant came at about 7:30 PM and told her that his mother was calling her, after which she accompanied him. However, in her Section 161 statement, she has stated that her sister Pooja had gone inside the house and that she was sitting alone at that time, a material contradiction which renders the prosecution case doubtful. It is also submitted that the statement of 3 the sister of the victim, recorded during investigation, confirms that the victim was indeed sitting with her at the relevant time, thereby falsifying the allegation that the applicant took her away. Apart from these contradictions, the evidence collected by the prosecution is not prima facie sufÏcient to establish the guilt of the applicant for the alleged offence. He further submits that the complaint has been lodged due to previous enmity and with the sole intention of implicating the applicant falsely and sending him to jail. The applicant has been in judicial custody since 07.07.2025, and the trial is likely to take considerable time. Hence, it is prayed that the applicant may kindly be enlarged on bail. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for grant of bail and submits that as per the statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS, it clearly appears that the victim was a major girl and that the applicant deceitfully informed her that his mother was calling her at his house. When the victim reached the house of the applicant, he forcibly took her into the toilet room and committed sexual intercourse with her against her will and further threatened to kill her if she disclosed the incident to anyone. It is further submitted that the MLC report of the victim is positive and injuries were found on her person, which corroborates the version of the victim. Considering the nature and gravity of the allegations, the medical evidence supporting the prosecution case, and the specific role attributed to the applicant, it is contended that he is not entitled to be released on bail at this stage. 4 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Having considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the case diary as well as other material available on record, it appears that the statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS clearly supports the prosecution version. The victim has categorically stated that the applicant deceitfully called her to his house on the pretext that his mother was calling her and thereafter, he forcibly committed sexual intercourse with her in the toilet room and threatened to kill her if she disclosed the incident to anyone. The MLC report of the victim is positive and injuries have been found on her person, which prima facie corroborate her statement. Though learned counsel for the applicant has attempted to point out certain contradictions between the FIR and the statement of the victim regarding the place of occurrence, such discrepancies, at this stage, cannot be a ground to discard the specific and consistent allegations made by the victim. The contradictions pointed out are minor in nature and can be examined during trial. 7. Considering the seriousness of the allegations, the nature and gravity of the offence, the supporting medical evidence, and the prima facie material available against the applicant, this Court is of the opinion that no case is made out for grant of bail at this stage. 8. Accordingly, the bail application filed by the applicant – Arun Behera, under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha 5 Sanhita, 2023, in connection with Crime No.53/2025, registered at Police Station Balouda, District – Mahasamund (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 64(1) and 351(3) of BNS 2023, is hereby rejected. 9. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 10. OfÏce is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal