1 2025:CGHC:57272 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 9175 of 2025 1 - Himalay Kenwat S/o Amit Kenwat Aged About 21 Years R/o Village - Shyamnagar, Out Post - Rajgamar, Police Station - Balconagar, District- Korba (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station - Civil Line Rampur, District- Korba (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Shri Dharmesh Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent/State : Ms.Priya Sharma, PL (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board 25/11/2025 The applicant has filed this bail application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrrik Suraksha Sanhita for grant of regular bail as he is in custody in connection with Crime No. 424/2025 registered at police SUGUNA DUBEY Digitally signed by SUGUNA DUBEY Date: 2025.11.28 11:09:36 +0530 2 station Civil lines, Rampur, District Korba (CG) for the offence punishable under Sections 65(1) of BNS and Section 6 of the POCSO, Act, 2012. 2. The prosecution case stems from a written complain lodged by the mother of the victim girl at police station Civil Line Rampur, District Korba on 14.07.2025 alleging that on 13.07.2025, at about 7.00pm her husband fell ill with diarrhea, prompting her and the victim to take him to District Hospital Korba for treatment. The next morning on 14.07.2025, ar about 8.00 am., the victim left for hospital canteen to fetch breakfast but did not return leading to search by the family and relatives but yielded no result. Suspecting abduction by unknown person, the report was lodged and subsequently she was recovered from the custody of the applicant. 3. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated. It is contended that the relationship between the victim and the applicant was by consent and out of love affair. The prosecution case is challenged on the ground of delay in lodging the FIR, a monetary dispute between the victim’s father and the main accused. The medical examination is relied upon to argue that there are no signs of recent injury or sexual intercourse, thereby denying commission of the offence. He further submits that the applicant is in jail since 16.07.2025, the charge sheet has been filed and the trial is likely to take some time, he is ready and willing to comply with any of the conditions which may be imposed upon him and thus, it is submitted that the application be allowed and the applicant be released on bail. 3 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application emphatically and submits that the case relates to offences under POCSO Act which mandates strict view against the accused to safeguard minor victims. The prosecution story narrates that the victim girl was taken by the applicant without consent and the medical evidence and the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C show serious allegations against the applicant. 5. Victim and her mother are appeared through the concerned DLSA and have no objection in granting bail to the applicant. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the case diary, this Court finds that the offences alleged against the applicant are serious in nature, involving a minor victim and covered under the POCSO Act and the plea of consent by a minor who is below the age of majority, is not recognized under the law. The applicant’s submission regarding false implication and monetary dispute is a matter for trial and no conclusive interference can be drawn at this stage. 7. In view of the seriousness of the allegations, the victim’s age being minor, the evidence collected so far and the absence of any exceptional circumstances warranting bail, the prayer for bail is hereby rejected. However, looking to the detention period of the applicant, it is expected that the trial Court shall conclude the trial expeditiously. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge