1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 7443 of 2025 1 - Tulsidas Kushwaha S/o Brijmohan Prasad Kushwaha Aged About 22 Years Caste Kushwaha, R/o Ghatai Chowki Kuwarpur, Police Station Janakpur, District Manendragarh Chirmiri Bharatpur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Janakpur, District Manendragarh Chirmiri Bharatpur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant : Shri Shivam Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondent : Shri Pranjal Shukla, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J Order on Board 14.10.2025 1. Pursuant to the order dated 16.09.2025, the father of victim appeared through virtual mode from the concerned DLSA and raised objection in granting bail to the applicant. His submission is recorded. 2. This is first bail application seeking grant of bail to the Applicant who is in jail since 21.04.2025 in connection with Crime No.75/2025 registered at Police Station Janakpur for the offence punishable under Sections 137(2), 87, 64(2)(m) of BNS and Section 4 & 6 of POCSO Act. 3. As per prosecution case, on 18.04.2025 a missing report was lodged by the father of victim that his minor daughter is missing since 15.04.2025 and her whereabouts could not be traced out. He raised 2 suspicion over the applicant that he kidnapped his daughter. The police registered an offence under Section 137(2) of BNS and started investigation. During investigation, the victim came back to her house and thereafter she was taken to police station. The police recorded her statement and thereafer other offences were added. The applicant was arrested and charge sheet was filed. 4. Learned Counsel for the applicant would submit that there is no cogent evidence with respect to age of victim. She was in love affair with the applicant and she herself eloped with the applicant and engaged in making consensual physical relationship with him. The Doctor, PW-2, examined before the trial court, have clearly deposed that victim informed her that she made physical relation with the applicant on her own will. From the statement of mother of victim it is a clear case of caste based as victim and applicant belong to different caste and they said that there is no possibility of marriage between them. Under pressure of family members, she made statement against the applicant. There was no injury on the body of victim either internal or external. Therefore, the applicant may be released on bail as final adjudication may take sometime. 5. On the other hand the counsel for the State opposes the bail application and have submitted that from the material collected during investigation, the victim appears to be minor aged about 16 years and 4 months on the date of incident. In her 180 as well as 183 BNSS statement she clearly made allegation against the applicant that on the pretext of marriage he committed rape upon her and therefore he is not entitled for bail. 3 6. Without commenting on merits, considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, considering the age and material collected during investigation, 180 and 183 BNSS statement of victim as also the statement of her parents and other witnesses, this Court is of the opinion that present is not a fit case where the Applicant can be enlarged on bail. 7. Accordingly, the application for grant of bail is rejected. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge inder