1 2025:CGHC:53062 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 7761 of 2025 1 - Tendulkar Sahis S/o Ravi Sahis Aged About 24 Years R/o Harijan Mohalla, Kharsia Tahsil And P.S. Kharsia, District - Raigarh (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Kharsia, District - Raigarh (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Shri Ashish Gupta, Advocate For Respondent/State : Shri Vivek Sharma, PL (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma ) Order on Board 30/10/2025 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. 331/2025 registered at police station Kharsiya, District Raigarh (CG) ) for the offence punishable under Sections 137(2) and 65(2) of the BNS Act, 2023 and Sections 2 5(m) and 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012. 2. Prosecution case in brief is that a report was lodged by mother of the minor prosecutrix, aged about 7 years 7 months. It is alleged that on 18.04.2025 the applicant enticed the minor to his house, where he committed grave acts amounting to sexual assault. Specifically it s alleged that the applicant inserted his finder into the private part of the minor prosecutrix and further inserted his own private part into her mouth. Owing to this reprehensible act, the prosecutrix cried and immediately fled towards her house, where she narrated the harrowing incident toher mother, who is also the first informant in the instant case. On the basis of the report so lodged by the complainant, a case was registered against the applicant for the relevant offences under the Indian Penal Code and the Protection of Childrten from Sexual Offences act, 2012 (hereinafter, ‘POCSO Act’). 3. Contention of the counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the crime in question and the entire case is fabricated and concocted. He submits that the prosecutrix is a minor, aged about 7 years and 7 months; however the prosecution has not established any conclusive medical evidence or corroborative materials to connect the applicant with the alleged offence. He further submits that the applicant is in custody since the date of his arrest ie. 18.06.2025. He further submits that the charge sheet has been filed, the trial will take time for its conclusion and therefore the applicant be released on bail. 3 4. Learned counsel for the respondent/State, on the other hand, opposes the bail application emphasizing the grave nature of the offences alleged under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 besides relevant IPC Sections, and the seriousness of the offence, 5. Parents of the victim appeared through VC from the concerned DLSA and has raised objection for grant of bail. 6. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the case diary with utmost circumspection. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the rival submissions made by the parties and further taking into consideration the fact that the age of the victim on the date of incident was 7 years and 7 months and the allegations are serious in nature which attracts stringent provisions under the POCSO Act, given the nature and gravity of the charges, I am not inclined to release him on bail. Accordingly, the application filed by the applicant under Section 483 of the BNSS is hereby rejected. However, the trial court is directed to expedite the trial as expeditiously as possible. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge SUGUNA DUBEY Digitally signed by SUGUNA DUBEY Date: 2025.11.07 12:05:39 +0530