1 / 3 2025:CGHC:60083 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 9565 of 2025 Rajesh Verma S/o Duryodhan Verma Aged About 31 Years R/o - Gram - Mohra, Police Station Suhela, District - Balodabazar - Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through - SHO Police Station Suhela, District - Balodabazar - Bhatapara (C.G.) (Details Of Non - Applicant Properly Not Mentioned In Impugned Order Sheet) ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Aman Tamrakar, Advocate For State /Respondent : Mr. Vivek Sharma, PL (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board 10/12/2025 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 06/11/2024 in connection with Crime No. 285/2024, registered at Police Station Suhela, District Balodabazar- ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA Date: 2025.12.11 15:28:36 +0530 2 / 3 Bhatapara, C.G. for the offence punishable under Sections 64, 64(2)(m), 351(3) of the B.N.S.; Section 4/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012; and Section 67 of the IT Act. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that the victim lodged a report alleging that the applicant who is the resident of her village on the promise that he loves her made physical relations with her on 20/06/2022 and thereafter continued the same act for a period of two years and committed sexual intercourse with her at different point of time at different places. In the month of July, 2024 he demanded an amount of Rs.50,000/- from the victim and the said demand could not be fulfilled therefore he uploaded the private photos/videos of the victim on the social media WhattsApp and the further threat was extended that if the same is revealed to anyone he will kill her. Thereafter, the crime was registered against the applicant and during investigation he was arrested. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that there is a delay of about 02 years in lodging the FIR and the prosecutrix was a consenting party. He would next contend that the allegation of rape has not been supported by the medical report as no injuries were found. He would next contend that the prosecutrix did not disclose the fact of commission of rape to anyone for a period of two years and just to falsely implicate the applicant the present FIR has been lodged. He would lastly contend that the applicant is in jail since 06/11/2024, therefore, he may be enlarged on bail. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bail. 3 / 3 5. Notice issued to the victim has been duly served, however, no representation has been made on behalf of the victim. 6. Ms. Anjali Pradhan, Advocate, who is present in the Court is appointed as Amicus Curiae, on behalf of the victim. She objected for grant of bail on behalf of the applicant. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 8. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and particularly considering the nature of allegations i.e. rape coupled with the illegal demand of money and also looking to the age of the applicant as he is aged about 31 years and the prosecutrix is a minor girl. Therefore, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail. 9. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected. However, learned trial Court is directed to expedite the trial, if there is no legal impediment. SD/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE ashu