1 / 3 2025:CGHC:53931 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 7625 of 2025 Vinod Mandavi S/o Massu Mandavi Aged About 20 Years R/o Gedgaon, P.S. And Tahsil Amabeda, Distt. North Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, P.S. Amabeda, Distt. North Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicant : Ms. Itu Rani Mukherjee, Advocate For State /Respondent : Ms. Laxmeen Kashyap, PL (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board 04/11/2025 1. This is the second 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 08/10/2024 in connection with Crime No. 15/2024, registered at Police Station Amabeda, District North Bastar Kanker, C.G. for the offence punishable under Sections363, 366, 376 (2) ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA Date: 2025.11.06 17:06:01 +0530 2 / 3 (n) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. 2. Earlier the first bail application bearing M.Cr.C. No.1215 of 2025 was dismissed for want of prosecution on 03/03/2025. 3. The case of the prosecution in brief is that the applicant abducted the prosecutrix from her lawful guardianship and detained her and during the course of detention, the applicant committed sexual intercourse with her on several times by giving false assurance of marriage, due to which the prosecutrix has become pregnant. Thereafter, the present applicant was arrested. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the prosecutrix was a consenting party. He would next contend that the FIR has been lodged with an inordinate and unexplained delay. He would lastly contend that the applicant is in jail since 06/10/2024; the charge-sheet in this case has been filed; and the trial will take to conclude, therefore, the applicant may be enlarged on bail. 5. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bail. 6. The prosecutrix appeared through the video conferencing from DLSA Kanker and she raised objection with regard to grant of bail to the applicant. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 8. Perusal of the documents would show that the prosecutrix was mior and she became pregnant and the DNA report is also positive, therefore, 3 / 3 considering the gravity of offence and the entire facts & circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail. 9. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected. SD/- SD/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE ashu