1 2025:CGHC:10387 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 1134 of 2025 1 - Udaybhan Singh S/o Shri Raju Singh Aged About 18 Years Profession- Student, Caste-Kshatriya, R/o - Village Bhittikalo (Kerakchar), P.S. - Manipur Tehsil Ambikapur District-Surguja (C.G.) ... Applicant versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Gandhinagar, District Surguja (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Shakti Raj Sinha, Advocate For State /Respondent : Mr. Vivek Sharma, PL Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 28/02/2025 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Shuraksha Sanhita for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested on 07/01/2025 in connection with Crime No.766/2024, registered at Police Station- Gandhinagar, District ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA Date: 2025.03.04 12:49:19 +0530 2 Surguja (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 326 (2), 109 (1), 61 (2), 74, 351 (2) BNS and Section 07/08 of the POCSO Act. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that the applicant along with other co-accused persons hatched a criminal conspiracy and reached near the house of the victim and thereafter threw a petrol bomb and exploded it on account of which some damage was also caused to the house and and household articles of the victim and they also beaten the prosecutrix and extended threat to kill her. Thereafter, the report was lodged before the police station and during investigation the present applicant was arrested. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has not committed any offence as alleged against him and the car of the maternal uncle of the applicant was used only. He would next contend that the applicant is a young boy of 18 years and if he is detained for long period, it would affect his carrier adversely. He would next contend that the car which was used for commission of crime was not in possession of the applicant. He would lastly contend that the applicant is in jail since 07/01/2025 and trial is likely to take some time, therefore, it is prayed that the applicant may be released on bail. 4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the bail application submitted by the applicant. 3 5. The father of the prosecutrix appeared through video conferencing from DLSA, Surguja and he objected to grant of bail to the applicant. 6. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties, perused the case diary and other materials available on record. 7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and particular considering the involvement of the present applicant in this case as they hatched conspiracy and went to the house of the complainant/victim and prepared a bomb, thrown in the house, therefore, the offence appears to be very serious and with the intention to save himself, the applicant covered the number plate of the car and did not come out of that just in order to eliminate his presence. Therefore, considering the over all act of the applicant and looking to the seriousness of the offence, this Court is of the view that the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail. 8. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected. However, the trial Court is directed to expedite the trial. Sd/- SD/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Ashu