1 2025:CGHC:53054 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 7906 of 2025 Deva Kartami S/o Hidma Kartami Aged About 20 Years R/o Village Neelavaram, P.S. Fulbagadi, Tahsil And District Sukma C.G. ... Appellant versus State of Chhattisgarh through Station House Officer, Police Station Fulbagadi, District Sukma Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For the applicant : Mr. Nitansh Kumar Jaiswal, Advocate For the respondent : Mr. G.L. Ukey, Panel Lawyer (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Order on Board 30.10.2025 1. This is Second bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant in Crime No.1/2025 registered at Police Station Fulbagadi District Sukma (CG) for the offences under Sections 376(2) (n) of IPC and Section 4 & 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. ALLENA ANNAJEE RAO Digitally signed by ALLENA ANNAJEE RAO Date: 2025.10.31 14:29:29 +0530 2 2. The first bail application (MCRC No.3292/2025 has been dismissed as withdrawn on 19.06.2025. 3. The prosecution story is that a written complaint was lodged by the prosecutrix alleging that when she was studying 6th Class in the year 2020 at Dantewada, the applicant committed forcible sexual intercourse with her on the pretext of marriage as a result of which she became pregnant and having come to know about her pregnancy, the applicant got her aborted by administering medicines in the year 2021. It is further alleged that in between 27.12.2020 and 14.11.2023, the applicant continuously used to commit sexual intercourse with her on the pretext of marriage and when she insisted upon marriage, he denied to marry her. On the basis of the said complaint, the applicant has been arrested. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant refers to the court statement of victim and submits that the victim was a consenting party. He further submits that although the prosecutrix is stated to be minor, yet the evidence of correct age has not been proved. He further submits that there was inordinate delay in filing the FIR as it was filed on 27.03.2025 that is much after the incident which took place in between 27.12.2020 to 14.11.2023. He further submits that there are a total 27 witnesses, out of which, only one witness i.e., victim has been examined; the appellant is in jail since 28.03.2025 and there is no immediate possibility of disposal of the case, therefore, the applicant may be enlarged on bail. 3 5. Per contra, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application and submits that at the time of incident, the victim was minor and she has supported the case of prosecution in her court statement. 6. The victim along with her brother has appeared through VC from DLSA, Sukma and has raised objection to granting bail to the applicant. 7. Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and the facts situation of the case and further considering version of the victim in paras 29 & 32 of her court statement, without observing anything on merits of the case, I am inclined to release the applicant on bail at this stage. 8. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed and the applicant is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the said Court as and when directed in that behalf. Cc as per rules. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Rao 4