1 2025:CGHC:7156 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 8794 of 2024 1 - Indal Kumar S/o Dinesh Kumar Aged About 27 Years R/o Kadwa Bandhwatola, Police Station Dholbajja, District Bhagalpur Bihar ... Applicant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Punjipathra, Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant : Shri Ashish Gupta, Advocate For Respondent/State : Ms.Vaishali Mahilong, PL (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board 07.02.2025 The applicant has filed this bail application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrrik Suraksha Sanhita for grant of regular bail as he is in custody in connection with Crime No. 288/2023 registered at police station Punjipathra, Raigarh District Raigarh (CG) ) for the offence punishable under Sections 376, A/B,369 of the IPC and Sections 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. SUGUNA DUBEY Digitally signed by SUGUNA DUBEY Date: 2025.02.08 12:20:25 +0530 2 2. Prosecution case in brief is that a written report was lodged by the mother of the prosecutrix alleging that her minor daughter aged about 4 years is missing and it was informed by one of the villager that some unknown person took her daughter to the forest area. When her daughter returned, she narrated the incident to her and thereafter the report was registered against the applicant and he was arrested. 4. Contention of the counsel for the applicant is that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the crime in question. He further submits that the incident took place on 3.12.2023 and the FIR has been lodged on 5.12.2023 and no explanation has been given by the prosecution. He submits that there is no document with regard to the age of the prosecutrix to prove her actual age. He submits that the prosecution has conducted the MLC of the prosecutrix and there was no internal or external injury found on the body of the victim. Lastly, he submits that the applicant is in jail since 21.12.2023, charge sheet has been filed and the trial is likely to take some time, he is ready and willing to comply with any of the conditions which may be imposed upon him and thus, it is submitted that the application be allowed and the applicant be released on bail. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent/State, on the other hand, has opposed the bail application and submits that the prosecutrix was minor aged about 4 years at the time of incident and therefore the applicant may not be granted bail. 6. Father of the victim appeared through the concerned DLSA and they had no objection if the applicant is released on bail. 7. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3 8. On due consideration of the rival submissions, from the records it prima facie appears that the applicant had allured the prosecutrix who was a minor, away from the lawful guardianship of her parents and committed rape therefore looking to the nature of the offence, though father of the victim had no objection, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail. Accordingly, his bail application is rejected. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge