1 2025:CGHC:7159 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 344 of 2025 1 - Jay Kumar Dheewar @ Manjhala S/o Shri Mangal Prasad Dheewar Aged About 20 Years R/o Village- Afarid, Police Station- Saragaon, District- Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) ... Applicant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station- Saragaon, District- Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant : Shri Vishwanath Shrivas, Advocate on behalf of Shri Pasasmani Shrivas, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms.Pragya Shrivastava, Dy.GA (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. 144/2024 registered at police station Saragaon, District Janjgir-Champa (CG) ) for the offence SUGUNA DUBEY Digitally signed by SUGUNA DUBEY Date: 2025.02.08 12:20:25 +0530 2 punishable under Sections 137(2), 64(2) (N), 65 (1) and 87 of the BNS Act, 2023 and Sections 4 & 6 of the Proection of Children from Sexual Offences Act and Section 3(2)(v) of theSC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 2. Prosecution case in brief is that a missing report was lodged by the father of the prosecutrix, who is minor aged about 13 years against unknown person alleging that his daughter has been allured and during investigation, she was recovered from the custody of the applicant and he was arrested on 22.09.2024. 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 are residents of the same village and the family members of the prosecutrix were having objection to talk to the applicant and therefore he has been implicated in a false case. It is submitted that the prosecutrix was recovered from Lucknow (UP). He submits that the prosecutrix visited several places with the applicant and developed physical relations with him without raising alarm. Lastly, he submits that the applicant is in jail since 22.09.2024, 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 at the time of incident. 6. Victim and her father appeared through the concerned DLSA and had raised objection. 3 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 they visited several places, developed physical relations with her, therefore looking to the nature and gravity of the offence, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail. Accordingly, his bail application is rejected. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge