1 2025:CGHC:469 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 8241 of 2024 Hiralal Sen S/o Late Shri Ramgarib Aged About 63 Years R/o Village Semariya Mauganj, P.S. Mauganj Dev Talab, District Mauganj Madhya Pradesh At Present R/o Ward No. 21, Hasiya Ward Manendragarh, P.S. Manendragarh, And District M.C.B. Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Podi District M.C.B. Chhattisgarh ... Non-Applicant(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Ramsevak Soni alongwith Mr. Ravi Kumar Banjare, Advocates For Non-Applicant(s) : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Deputy G.A For Objector : Mr. Virendra Verma, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 03/01/2025 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 132/2024 registered at Police Station Podi District M.C.B (C.G.) for the offence punishable under 2 Sections 363, 366, 376 (2) (n), 342, 509 (b) of Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) Section 4 and 6 of Protection Of Children From Sexual Offences Act (for short ‘POCSO’ Act). 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant has made complaint to concerned police station alleging that on date of incident i.e. 16.01.2019, three accused persons have carried the victim on the pretext of providing job through their vehicle, moreover, they have committed sexual intercourse with her by threatening and publishing video viral. Based upon the such complaint of the complainant, the police has registered the offence punishable under section 363, 366, 376 (2) (n), 342, 509 (b) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 04, 06 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences, Act, 2012 at Crime No. 132/2024 against the accused persons and present applicant. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has not committed any of the aforesaid offences as alleged by prosecution, which is clearly showing from whatsapp messages and transaction of money from bank statement by blackmailing the applicant, copies of those are annexed collectively as Annexure A-2. He further submits that both sons of the applicant have made joint complaint to the concerned Police Station Podi, District M.C.B. (C.G.) on 28.01.2024 and also made complaint to the SP, District M.C.B. (C.G.) against the threatening given through mobile to the whole family members of applicant to involve them in a false sexual case in the name of Ruchika Chakradhari and also threatening to compromise in a false complaint. He also submits that the victim in 3 her statement and written complaint, stated that the applicant is known to her and he has no committed any alleged offence with her, copies of which are collectively annexed as Annexure A-5, also there is delay in lodging FIR, as the incident took place during 06.01.2019 to 11.06.2024 and the FIR was registered on 19.09.2024, further one of the co-accused persons, namely, Pradeep Chakradhari has already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 09.12.2024 in MCRCA No.1242 of 2024. The applicant is in jail since 20.09.2024, the applicant has no criminal antecedent, charge-sheet has been filed and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant. 4. Learned State Counsel appearing for the respondent/State opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case. 5. Learned counsel for the objector submits that the applicant alongwith other co-accused persons have forcefully taken the victim through their vehicle and committed sexual intercourse with her and also threatened to make her video viral, therefore, the applicant is not entitled for grant of bail. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of offence, period of detention of the applicant since 20.09.2024, from perusal of case diary, it transpires that the 4 victim was aged about 17 years 7 months at the time of incident and there is delay in lodging the FIR of about 5 years 8 months, also considering the statement of victim recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C and the fact that co-accused, namely, Pradeep Chakradhari has already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 09.12.2024 in MCRCA No.1242 of 2024, the applicant has no criminal antecedent and charge-sheet has been filed in the present case, as such, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 8. Let the Applicant-Hiralal Sen, involved in Crime No. 132/2024 registered at Police Station Podi District M.C.B (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376 (2) (n), 342, 509 (b) IPC and Section 4 and 6 of POCSO Act, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufÏcient cause, 5 the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 351 of BNSS. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufÏcient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. 9. OfÏce is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Kunal