1 2025:CGHC:52805 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 8415 of 2025 Deepak Kewat S/o Shyamlal Kewat Aged About 21 Years R/o Village Devarhat P.S. Lalpur, District- Mungeli (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station- Jarhagaon District- Mungeli (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant : Mr. Ashish Tiwari, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Vivek Mishra, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order On Board 29.10.2025 1. The victim along with her father appeared before this Court today through virtual mode from DLSA, Mungeli and objected to grant of bail to the applicant. 2. This is the second bail application filed u/s 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime BHOLA NATH KHATAI Digitally signed by BHOLA NATH KHATAI Date: 2025.10.30 11:45:53 +0530 2 No.199/2024 registered at Police Station Jarhagaon District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh for the offence under Sections 137(2), 64(1) of BNS, 2023 and Sections 4 & 6 of the POCSO Act. 3. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected on merits vide order dated 10.06.2025 in MCRC No.2895/2025. 4. As per the prosecution case, the applicant is alleged to have allured and taken away the minor girl from the lawful custody of her parents and committed forcible sexual intercourse with her on the pretext of marriage, thereby the offence has been committed. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that no ossification test was conducted to prove the age of prosecutrix and she has voluntarily accompanied the applicant. The applicant and the prosecutrix were in love affairs and she was a consenting party, therefore, no offence is made out against the applicant. He submits that FSL and MLC reports are negative. He further submits that out of total 17 witnesses, 6 witnesses have been examined till date, the applicant is in jail since 28.11.2024 and there is no likelihood of the trial to be concluded at the earliest. Therefore, considering all these facts, the applicant may be released on bail. 6. Per contra, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the applicant allured the victim and after kidnapping, committed forcible sexual intercourse with her. He further submits that the victim was a minor at the time of incident, therefore, her consent is of no relevance/consequence and 3 considering the nature of offence, the applicant does not deserve to be released on bail. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 8. Taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the court statement of the victim coupled with the fact that according to the prosecution, her age was 17 years, 3 months & 27 days at the time of incident and also considering the fact that there are total 17 witnesses out of which 6 witnesses have been examined so far, the applicant is in jail since 28.11.2024 i.e. about 11 months and there is all possibility of the trial taking considerable time for its final conclusion, without commenting anything on merits of the case, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the applicant. 9. Accordingly, the application for grant of bail is allowed. It is directed that the present Applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court. The applicant is directed to appear before the trial Court on each and every date to be given to him by the said Court till completion of the trial. 10. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) JUDGE Khatai