1 2025:CGHC:9015 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRC No. 9122 of 2024 • Praveen Yadav S/o Dinesh Kumar Yadav Aged About 20 Years R/o Ward No. 21, Railway Colony, Rajhara, P.S. Rajhara, District Balod, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant(s) versus State of Chhattisgarh, Through S.H.O. Police Station Rajhara, District Balod Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Shikhar Bhakhtiyar, Advocate For Respondent/State : Ms. Laxmin Kashyap, PL. Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 20/02/2025 1. This is first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 for grant of regular bail to applicant, who has been arrested in connection with Crime No.214/2024, registered at PS - Rajhara, District -Balod Chhattisgarh, for commission of offence punishable under Sections 308(2), 107/62, 49 of the BNS, Section 11/12 of the POCSO Act. 2. Case of prosecution, in brief, is that complainant/mother of the victim/prosecutrix lodged a complaint before Police Station -Rajhara alleging that the applicant has allured her minor daughter under the pretext of love, taken her photographs and, thereafter, threatened her to circulate said photographs and demanding Rs.4,000-5,000. Due to said harassment and blackmailing, the prosecutrix attempted to commit 2 suicide on 09/08/2024. Based on the complaint, FIR was registered against the applicant and he has been arrested on 25.08.2024 in the aforementioned crime/offence. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in this case, he has not committed any offence as alleged against him. There is no evidence/material available on record that applicant has asked for money from the prosecutrix and neither the prosecution has placed any evidence/material which shows that the prosecutrix has ever paid any money to the applicant. Learned Counsel further submits that prosecutrix used to go out with the applicant and asked him to take her photo/picture. It is no where alleged that the pictures/photos clicked by the applicant inappropriate in any manner, further no pictures/photos have been seized from the present applicant. Applicant is in jail since 25.08.2024, conclusion of trial may take some time, hence, applicant may be released on bail. 4. Per contra, learned State Counsel opposes the submission of counsel for the applicant and would submit that the applicant has allured the minor victim (aged about 12 years) under the pretext of love, taken her photographs against her will and, thereafter, threatened her to circulate said photographs and demanding Rs.4,000-5,000, due to said harassment, the prosecutrix attempted to commit suicide on 09/08/2024. Hence, looking to the conduct of applicant, he may not be released on bail. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. Victim is appeared before this Court by virtual mode from the concerned DLSA and raised objection in granting bail to the applicant. 7. Considering facts of the case, nature of allegations, submission of learned counsel for the parties, statements of the victim, particularly the 3 submission that the applicant has allured the minor victim (aged about 12 years) under the pretext of love, taken her photographs against her will and, thereafter, threatened her to circulate said photographs and demanding Rs.4,000-5,000, due to said harassment, the prosecutrix attempted to commit suicide on 09/08/2024, I am not inclined to allow this bail application. 8. Accordingly, bail application is hereby rejected. Certified copy as per rules. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge J.