1 2025:CGHC:55340 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 7922 of 2025  Ku. Rinki Kaur @ Daler Singh D/o Makhtar Singh Aged About 36 Years (Wrongly Written As S/o), R/o Contractor Colony Near Bajrang Mandir, Supela, P.S. Supela, Distt. Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant(s) versus  State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Bori, Distt. Durg, Chhattisgarh. --- Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. R.K. Jain, Advocate. For-Non-applicant : Ms. Laxmeen Kashyap, Panel Lawyer. For Objector : Mr. Anmol Sharma, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 13/11/2025 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the B.N.S.S. for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 95/2025 registered at Police Station Bori, District Durg (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 137(2), 351(3), 127(2) of BNS and Section 4 & 6 of the POCSO Act and Section 3(2)(V) of S.C. and S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 2. The allegation against the present applicant as per the prosecution case is that, the prosecutrix aged about 16 years have lodged report against 2 the applicant mentioning therein that the applicant and prosecutrix both are knowing to each other, mother and father of the prosecutrix use to live separately. The prosecutrix, her elder sister and younger brother are reside with their father. The father of prosecutrix doing job at Arpana Company Jevra Sirsa. On 10.07.2025 when the prosecutrix alone in her house at nigh 01:00 o’clock at that time, the applicant came and insisted to prosecutrix to meet and then the prosecutrix met with her in the roof of house, thereafter applicant took her to her room and press her chest and enter her finger in vagina. The allegation is also that on 13.07.2025, again applicant came in house of prosecutrix and took her in the motorcycle at Ramnagar and kept her in a vacant house and bolted door from outside. When her Mousi (aunty) came for inquiry of prosecutrix from the applicant, then she came under fear and drop the prosecutrix in the gate of Factory where father of prosecutrix is working and she informed her father. On the basis of said report, an F.I.R. in this regard was lodged and the present applicant has been arrested on 18.07.2025 3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the prosecutrix and applicant are ladies and there is love and affection between them. The Doctor, who had examine to the prosecutrix not found any external or internal injury upon the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix herself went with the applicant. He further submits that there is delay in lodging of FIR without explaining any cogent reason in delay of lodging FIR and the applicant is in jail since 18.07.2025, hence he prays that the applicant be enlarged on bail. 4. Learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the State however opposing the 3 bail application submits that the prosecutrix was a minor aged about 16 years and thus prayed for rejection of bail application. 5. In pursuance of notice issued to victim on 13.10.2025, Today, learned counsel appeared on behalf of the prosecutrix and raised objection in releasing the applicant on bail. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Having heard the contentions put forth on either side and on perusal of record, particularly considering the fact that the applicant is a lady and also considering the detention period of the applicant and the trial is likely to take sometime for its conclusion and the applicant is in jail since 18.07.2025, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 8. Let applicant be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 10,000 with one surety in the 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 case of his absence, without sufÏcient cause, the trial court may proceed against them under Section 269 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sahita, 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 Nyaya Sahita, 2023 4 (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 sufÏcient 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. OfÏce is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Jyoti