1 2025:CGHC:1670 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 8787 of 2024 Bhupendra Kumar Rai S/o Ravindra Nath Rai, Aged About 21 Years R/o Village Bholapur (Wrongly Mentioned As Bhalpur), Police Station - Churiya, District Rajandgaon, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Station House Officer, Police Station - Churiya, District - Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Abhishek Banjare on behalf of Mr. Veer Verma, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Ajay Pandey, G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order On Board 10.01.2025 1. The applicant has filed this second bail application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. for grant of regular bail as he is in custody since 12.10.2022 in connection with Crime No. 413/2022 registered at police station Churiya, District Rajnandgaon (CG) for the offence punishable under Sections 376 (2)(n), 294, 506 of IPC Section 4, 6 of POCSO Act, 2012. 2. First bail application of the applicant was dismissed as withdrawn on 29.11.2022 in MCRC No. 9502/2022 3. Case of the prosecution in brief is that the applicant committed sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix and threatened her that if she will not come to meet him, he will upload the photos and videos of prosecutrix on social media platforms. 2 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated and he has not committed any crime. Even as per the allegation, the alleged incident of the sexual intercourse have been between the period from December, 2021 till 08.08.2022. The said incident was informed by the victim to her parents on 10.10.2022. Even otherwise, the report was lodged on 11.10.2022 at about 5:15 p.m. whereas the distance between the police station from their home is about 9 k.m. The police has not seized the mobile of the applicant and looking to the conduct of the victim, evidence brought before the learned trial court, the applicant is entitled to grant of bail. In the medical report, the victim is said to be habitual to the sexual intercourse. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application and submits that victim has categorically stated against the applicant and her date of birth is 01.04.2006 and at that time she was less than 18 years of age. Ossification test also indicates that her age is between 16-17 years. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the record. 7. The victim along with her parents appeared through concerned DLSA and objected for grant of bail. 8. Considered the facts and circumstances of the case, looking to the evidence gathered, nature of evidence collected, this Court is not inclined to allow the application. 9. Accordingly, bail application of applicant is hereby rejected. However, looking to the detention period of the applicant, it is expected that the learned trial Court would make all endeavour to expedite the trial and conclude the same within a reasonable period of time. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput ) Judge H.Ansari