1 2025:CGHC:52802 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 8106 of 2025 Rupendra Kumar @ Rinku Chakradhari S/o Bhaiyaram Chakradhari Aged About 42 Years R/o Village - Aamakoni, Police Station- Khallari, District Mahasamund C.G. ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Tumgaon, District Mahasamund C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Applicant : Mr. Shivendu Pandya, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Ajay Pandey, Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order On Board 29.10.2025 1. The victim along with her parents appeared before this Court today through virtual mode from DLSA, Mahasamund and expressed their objection in granting 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 11:45:11 +0530 2 No.185/2024 registered at Police Station - Tumgaon, District – Mahasamund (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 137(2), 74, 75(2), 351(3), 3(5) of BNS, 2023, Section 8 of POCSO Act, 2012 and Sections 3 (1) w (i), 3 (2) (v) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 3. The first bail application of the applicant was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file the same after sometime vide order dated 27.06.2025 in MCRC No.4427/2025. 4. As per the prosecution case, the applicant along with co-accused knowing fully well that the victim was a minor, kidnapped her from the lawful guardianship of her parents on 12.11.2024, took her to different places and tried to outrage her modesty. The missing report of the victim was lodged on 14.11.2024, she was recovered on 17.01.2025 and the applicant was arrested on 14.02.2025. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the victim has been examined before the trial Court and she has clearly stated that no incident occurred during the said period. He submits that if the entire prosecution case is taken as it is, the offence under section 354 of IPC is not made out against the applicant. He further submits that out of total 17 witnesses, only the victim has been examined till date, the applicant is in jail since 14.02.2025 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. 3 6. Learned state counsel, on the other hand, opposing the bail application submits that the victim was minor at the time of incident and 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 and also considering the fact that there are total 17 witnesses out of which only the victim has been examined so far, the applicant is in jail since 14.02.2025 and there is all possibility of the trial taking considerable time for its final conclusion, this Court is of the opinion that a case for grant of bail to the applicant has been made out. 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