1 2025:CGHC:7157 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 8920 of 2024 1 - Lokeshwar Das Manikpuri S/o Rameshwar Das Manikpuri Aged About 21 Years R/o Village Rawan Police Station Suhela, District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Suhela, District- Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Applicant : Shri Gurudev I.Sharan,Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Laxmin Kashyap, 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. 252/2024 registered at police station Suhela, District Baloda Bazar (CG) ) for the offence punishable under Sections 137(2), 87, 64(2) of the BNS Act, 2023 and Sections 4 & 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. SUGUNA DUBEY Digitally signed by SUGUNA DUBEY Date: 2025.02.08 12:20:24 +0530 2 2. Prosecution case in brief is that a missing report was lodged by the mother of the prosecutrix, who is minor aged about 12 years 10 months and nine days, against unknown person alleging that her daughter was found missing and during investigation, father of the applicant along with the applicant came to the police station where he disclosed that the applicant took her to Raigarh and committed sexual intercourse. The applicant and he was arrested on 11.10.2024. 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 applicant and the prosecutrix were having love affair and she had eloped with the applicant of her own will. He submits that the applicant is in jail since 11.10.2024, 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 12 years and 10 months at the time of incident. 6. Victim and her father 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. 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 ha 3 developed physical relations with her, therefore looking to the nature of the offence, though the victim and her father had no objection, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail. Accordingly, his bail application is rejected. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge