2025:CGHC:52289 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 7651 of 2025 Shailesh Kumar Verma S/o Late Dauva Ram Verma Aged About 47 Years R/o Village Jheepan, P.S. Suhela, District : Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer (S.H.O.) P.S. Suhela, Dist. Balodabazar-Bhatapara, C.G. (As Per Order Sheet) ... Respondent (Cause title is taken from the CIS) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Applicant : Shri Devershi Thakur, and Shri Ashutosh Biswas, Advocates For Respondent/State : Shri Sanjeev Kumar Pandey, Dy AG ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 27.10.2025 1. Pursuant to order dated 23.09.2025, victim along with her mother appeared through virtual mode from the concerned DLSA, and raised objection in granting bail to the applicant. Their objection has been taken on record. 2. Heard on the application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS, 2023). This is the first bail application before this Court filed by the applicant for grant of regular bail. 3. The applicant has been arrested on 17.06.2025 in connection with Crime No.127 of 2025, registered at PS- Suhela, District-Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh for the offence punishable under Sections 74 of the BNS, and 9(c) and 10 of the POCSO Act, 2012. Digitally signed by V PADMAVATHI Date: 2025.10.29 10:55:31 +0530 Mcrc 7651 of 2025 2 4. Case of the prosecution in brief is that on 16.06.2025, mother of the victim lodged a written complaint against the applicant that on 09.06.2025, when her daughter had gone to the School to appear in Supplementary examination of Class XI, present applicant outraged her modesty, asking her to sexually favour him, so that she may be passed in the examination. Somehow, she could save herself, and came out from the school. Due to fear of detainment in the class, she could not inform the incident to anyone, however, she informed the incident to her maternal aunt and then her mother, who lodged the report. FIR has been registered under Section 74 of the BNS 2023, 9(c) and 10 of the POCSO Act, 2012 against the applicant, and he has been arrested on 17.06.2025 and charge-sheet has been filed. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that applicant is a teacher in other school, and he is nowhere concerned with the school, where the victim appearing for supplementary examination. He has no access to the School, which is totally foreign with his business. He would also submit that though CCTV footage of the School was collected, but the same was not made part of the charge-sheet, and suppressed by the Police. Also, Invigilators’ list has not been collected by the Police. The alleged incident was occurred on 09.06.2025, whereas, the same was reported to the Police on 16.06.2025, which is highly belated, and there is no satisfactory explanation for delayed FIR. The applicant is in jail since 17.06.2025, and till date, charges have not been framed. Final adjudication of the case will take its own time. Hence, the applicant may be granted bail. 6. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application, and would submit that relatives of the present applicant are working as Mcrc 7651 of 2025 3 teachers in the School, where the victim had gone to give her supplementary examination, and the applicant and his relatives are residing within the school premises, where the incident occurred and he is having easy access to the school. From the statement of the victim, as well as her mother, and maternal aunt, there is sufficient evidence with respect to his involvement in the alleged offence. He would also submit that there is criminal antecedent against the applicant for the offence punishable under Section 509B of the IPC, registered at Police Station Tilda, Nevra, and trial of this case is going on. Therefore, applicant is not entitled for release on bail. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties, and perused the case diary. 8. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, considering the gravity of offence, and nature of evidence collected by the prosecution during investigation, further, considering the evidence on record with respect to access of the applicant in the School, where the victim had gone to appear for her supplementary examination, from the statement of the victim and her mother and maternal aunt, also considering that the applicant is having past criminal antecedent for the offence under Section 509B of the IPC, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail at this stage. 9. 9. Accordingly, bail application of the applicant- Shailesh Kumar Verma, s/o Late Dauva Ram Verma is rejected. Certified copy as per rules. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) JUDGE padma