1 / 3 2025:CGHC:57026 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 8486 of 2025 Anuj Banjare S/o Rajendra Banjare Aged About 21 Years R/o Village Paraswani, (K), Police Station Bhatapara Gramin, District Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through - The Station House Officer, Police Station Bhatapara (Gramin), District Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Ankul Biswas, Advocate For State /Respondent : Ms. Laxmeen Kashyap, PL (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board 24/11/2025 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 02/02/2025 in connection with Crime No. 665/2024, registered at Police Station Bhatapara (Gramin), District Balodabazar-Bhatapara, C.G. for the offence punishable under Sections 137 (2), 96, 64(E), 65 (1) of the B.N.S. and Sections 4 & 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA Date: 2025.11.25 15:46:23 +0530 2 / 3 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 23/12/2024, the parents of the prosecutrix made a complaint that their minor daughter, aged about 14 years & 06 Months, has gone somewhere without any intimation. On the basis of the said complaint a missing report was registered and during the course of investigation, the prosecutrix has been recovered from the possession of the present applicant and the present applicant was arrested. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the victim was a consenting party and she on her own will joined the company of the applicant. He would next contend that the MLC would show that the victim was not subjected to any forceful intercourse as no internal and external injuries were found on the body of the victim. He would next contend that the mother of the victim has not stated the date of birth of the victim and the prosecution has failed to prove the age of the victim to be below the age of 18 years. He would lastly contend that the applicant is in jail since 02/02/2025, therefore, he may be enlarged on bail. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bail. 5. The prosecutrix did not appear before this Court despite the fact that the notice has been duly served upon her. 6. Ms. Shivani Singh, Advocate, who is present in the Court, appointed as amicus curiae on behalf of the victim/prosecutrix and she made objection with regard to grant of bail to the applicant. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 8. Considering the nature and gravity of offence as it is a rape case that too with a minor girl who was aged about 14 Years & 06 Months and the 3 / 3 applicant enticed away her without any knowledge of her parents and she could recover only after the police carried out the investigation. Therefore, considering the entire facts & circumstances of the case and the way in which the offence has been committed, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail. 9. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected. SD/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE ashu