1 2025:CGHC:56431 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 9048 of 2025 1 - Dharam Singh Janghel S/o Late Ramadhin Jhanghel Aged About 47 Years (As Per Arrest Memo And Lower Court Rejection Order Annexure A/2) R/o Village Sandi, Police Station Gandai, District Khairagarh- Chuikhadan- Gandai (C.G.) (Applicant Name Wrongly Mention Is Annexure A/1) ... Applicant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station- Gandai District Khairagarh- Chuikhadan- Gandai (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Maneesh Sharma, Adv. For State : Mr. G.L. Uikey, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board 19/11/2025 1. This is the second bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 89/2025 registered at Police Station Gandai, District Khairagarh-Chuikhadan-Gandai HEERA LAL SAHU Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2025.11.19 17:31:01 +0530 2 (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 74, 76, 79, 351(3) of BNS, 2023 and Sections 8, 10 of POCSO Act. 2. The first bail application of the applicant was dismissed as withdrawn on 23.06.2025 in MCRC No. 4280/2025. 3. As per the prosecution’s case, on 13.04.2025, the father of one victims lodged a written report stating that on 02.04.2025 at about 1:30 pm, the applicant called the complainant’s daughter and her friends to his house, where he attempted to outrage their modesty and threatened them if they disclosed the incident to anyone. Based on this, offence has been registered against the present applicant. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that all three victims have been examined, and they have not supported the case of the prosecution. There is a delay of about 11 days in lodging the FIR as the incident is alleged to have taken place on 02.04.2025, whereas the FIR has been lodged on 13.04.2025. He also submits that in the MLC report there were no external injuries were found on the bodies of the victims. The applicant is in jail since 14.04.2025, and the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude. Therefore, he prays for the grant of regular bail to the applicant. 3 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposed the bail application and submitted that the applicant committed a heinous offence with the three minor victims and PW-6 and PW-7 supported the case of the prosecution; therefore, at this stage, he may not be enlarged on bail. 6. All three victims along with their father, appeared through video conferencing from the concerned DLSA. One victim’s father raised objection to grant bail to the applicant where whereas two victims’ father have recorded their no objection. 7. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that there is a delay of 11 days in lodging the FIR and out of 15 witnesses 7 witnesses including all the victims and their parents have been examined before the trial Court, the applicant is in custody since 14.04.2025, and the trial is likely to take considerable time, therefore, at this stage, without commenting on merits of the case, I am inclined to release the applicant on bail. 9. Accordingly, the application is allowed and it is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with 4 one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court. The applicant is directed to appear before the trial Court on each and every date to be given to him by the said Court till disposal of the trial. It is made clear that any observation made by this Court in this order shall not affect the trial of the case. 10. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge H.L. Sahu