1 / 3 2025:CGHC:55951 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 8491 of 2025 Fulchand Kurre S/o Shri Mantram Kurre Aged About 22 Years R/o Village - Pendri Talab, Post - Manoharpur, P.S. And Tahsil - Lalpur, District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Kota, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Rajendra Patel, Advocate For State /Respondent : Mr. Ajit Singh, GA (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board 17/11/2025 1. This is the Third 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 03/10/2024 in connection with Crime No. 826/2024, registered at Police Station Kota, District Bilaspur, C.G. for the offence punishable under Sections 137 (2), 87, 64 (2) (d), 65 (1), 351(2), 115(2), 296 of the B.N.S. and Sections 3/4(2), 5 (1) & 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA Date: 2025.11.24 18:13:52 +0530 2 / 3 2. Earlier the First Bail Application bearing MCRC No.252 of 2025 was dismissed for want of prosecution on 12/02/2025 and the Second Bail Application bearing MCRC No.3188 of 2025 was also dismissed for want of prosecution on 10/06/2025. 3. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 03/10/2024, the complainant-victim submitted a written report alleging therein that in the year 2021 the applicant took her to Lucknow and kept her there for a period of six months and brought her back to his home where the victim came to know that the applicant is a married person. He thereafter took her to Raipur and travelled different places and harassment was also made by the applicant because of that the victim called her brother and the report was lodged on 03/10/2024. Thereafter, the present applicant was arrested. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the prosecutrix is a consenting party and she in her deposition in para 4 has specifically stated that she had asked the applicant that if his wife and son will reside together with them then she will not stay with the applicant, therefore, the wife of the applicant went to her parental home. He wold next contend that the victim in her cross-examination has admitted that she has performed marriage with the applicant and was residing as a wife. He would next contend that the prosecution has failed to prove the age of the victim below 18 years and as per the statement of the father of the victim the age of the victim is 20 years. He would lastly contend that the age of the prosecutrix is 17 years & 01 month and she was on the border 3 / 3 line and would submit that the applicant is in jail since 03/10/2024, therefore, he may be enlarged on bail. 5. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bail and would submit that the applicant threatened the prosecutrix to make viral obscene photographs of the prosecutrix and the prosecutrix was minor on the date of incident, therefore, the applicant is not entitled for grant of bail. 6. The prosecutrix along with her father appeared in person before this Court 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 applicant established physical relations with the victim/prosecutrix when she was 13 years old and the applicant is a married person having children, therefore, considering the age of the prosecutrix and the suppression of fact of marriage by the applicant as well as the objection raised by the prosecutrix, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail. 9. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected. SD/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE ashu