1 / 4 2025:CGHC:61899 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 9819 of 2025 Umashankar Dhruv @ Dabla @ Jitendra Dhruv S/o Sagnuram Dhruv Aged About 33 Years R/o Village- Birkoni, Police Station- Sargaon, District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station- Sargaon, District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, Advocate For State /Respondent : Ms. Priya Sharma, PL (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board 19/12/2025 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 22/08/2025 in connection with Crime No. 19/2025, registered at Police Station Sargaon, District Mungeli, C.G. for the offence punishable under Sections137(2) (wrongly mentioned as 137(1) in the order-sheet), 87, 64 (1), 64(2)(m) (wrongly mentioned as 64(1) (2) (m) in the order sheet) of the B.N.S. and Sections 4 & 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA Date: 2025.12.22 11:04:12 +0530 2 / 4 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 19/02/2025 the complainant lodged a report in the concerned police station that his daughter aged about 15 years went outside the house for taking bath in the dam on 15/02/2025 at about 12 PM but did not return back. When the complainant went there the daughter was not present and on being enquired from the relatives and neighbours no information could be gathered. Thereafter, the complainant on the suspicion of elopement of her daughter lodged the report on the basis of which an FIR was registered and the investigation was carried out. During the course of investigation, the prosecutrix was recovered on 22/08/2025 from the possession of the applicant. Thereafter, the present applicant was arrested. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that it is a case of affair and the prosecutrix herself has joined the company of the applicant. He would next contend that the medical report do not support the fact of forceful rape. He would next contend that the age of the victim is 16 Years and 03 Months and it has not been conclusively proved that the prosecutrix was minor on the date of incident. He would lastly contend that the age of the prosecutrix is 16 years & 03 month and she was on the border line and would submit that the applicant is in jail since 22/08/2025, therefore, he may be enlarged on bail. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bail. 5. The Victim appeared in person along with her father before this Court and she raised objection with regard to grant of bail to the applicant. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 3 / 4 7. Perusal of the documents would show that the victim herself has joined the company of the applicant and she was in love relation with him for a continuous period of six months and till that period no report was lodged it is only after she left the house and eloped with the applicant the father of the victim lodged the report. Therefore, considering the fact that it is a case of consensual relationship and the prosecutrix is reported to be more than 16 years of age and the applicant is in jail since 22/08/2025, I am inclined to release the applicant on bail. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. 8. Let applicant Umashankar Dhruv @ Dabla @ Jitendra Dhruv, involved in Crime No.19/2025, under Sections 137(2) (wrongly mentioned as 137(1) in the order-sheet), 87, 64 (1), 64(2)(m) (wrongly mentioned as 64(1) (2) (m) in the order sheet) of the B.N.S. and Sections 4 & 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, police station Sargaon, District Mungeli, C.G., be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with one surety in like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in Court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial Court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (ii) the applicant shall remain present before the trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In 4 / 4 case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial Court may proceed against them under Section 269 of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS, 2023 is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial Court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023. (iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial Court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 351 of BNSS 2023. If in the opinion of the trial Court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial Court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against them in accordance with law. 9. Office is directed to sent a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. SD/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE ashu