1 2025:CGHC:1595 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 177 of 2025  Jai @ Ajay Yadav S/o Beniram Yadav Aged About 23 Years R/o Village Borsi, Thana Pamgarh, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus  State Of Chhattisgarh Through - The Station House Officer, Police Of Police Station Bilha, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate For State : Mr. Luv Sharma, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 09 .01.2025 1. The applicant has filed this fourth bail application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for the grant of regular bail as he was arrested on 06.11.2022 in connection with Crime No.225/2022 for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366-A, 376 of IPC and Sections 4, 5(L) & 6 of the POCSO Act registered at Police Station- Bilha, District – Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 2. Earlier, the first bail application preferred by the applicant i.e. MCRC/10666/2022 was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 20.03.2023. Subsequently, the second bail application i.e. MCRC/250/2024 filed by the applicant was also dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 15.01.2024. The third bail application was rejected on merits vide Order dated 22.07.2024 passed in MCRC No. 5154 of 2024. 2 3. As per the prosecution story, at the relevant time, the victim was aged about 17 years and she was abducted by the applicant. The victim was taken to various places for a period of one month and was sexually assaulted by the present applicant. Thereafter, she was recovered by the Police and her statement was recorded and an FIR was registered against the present applicant for the aforementioned offences. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the age of the victim was more than 18 years at the time of the incident and she was a consenting party. He further submitted that the victim also stayed with the applicant for a considerable period and the applicant is ready to marry her. It is further argued that the applicant has been languishing in jail since 06.11.2022 and only four witnesses have been examined so far including the victim. Thus, he prays for grant of bail. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State would oppose. He submitted that at the time of the incident, the victim was a minor; therefore this application deserves to be rejected. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Earlier, the third bail application moved by the applicant was rejected on merits and there is no change in circumstance. This bail application has also been preferred by the applicant more or less on the same grounds. Further considering the nature of allegations leveled against the present applicant, I am not inclined to allow this application. Accordingly, the instant application for the grant of bail is hereby rejected. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant