1 2025:CGHC:56139 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRC No. 8752 of 2025 Mukesh Sonkar S/o Kanti Lal Sonkar Aged About 25 Years R/o - Bhathagaon Bazaar Chowk, Ward No. 63, P/s Purani Basti, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through P/s Supela Chowki Smriti Nagar, District Durg, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Vinay Nagdev, Advocate (through VC) For Respondent/State : Ms. Sunita Manikpuri, Dy. GA Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 18/11/2025 1. The applicant has been preferred this first bail application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 for grant of regular bail. The applicant is arrested in connection with Crime No.1071/2024, registered at Police Station- Supela, Chowki Smriti Nagar, District Durg (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 137(1)(b), 87, 83, 64(2)(n), 65(1) of 2 BNS, Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act. 2. Brief facts of this case are that the father of the prosecutrix lodged a missing complaint on 11.10.2024 stating that the prosecutrix aged 15 years 11 months was missing since 07.10.2024 adhering to which offence bearing crime no. 1071/24 u/s 137(2) of the BNS was registered against unknown person. During the course of investigation, the prosecutrix was recovered whereafter her statement u/s 183 BNSS was recorded and she was medically examined and thereafter the other offences mentioned in the cause title were added. It is imperative to state here that from a perusal of the record/charge sheet it is apparent that there was no such allegation that the prosecutrix was subjected to any offence because of her belonging to a specific community and as a matter of routine, offences of the Atrocities Act were added. After culmination of investigation, charge sheet has been filed and the material witnesses including the prosecutrix have been examined before the trial court. It is also respectfully submitted that from a bare perusal of the depositions, it is apparent on the face of record that there is serious doubt about the prosecutrix being minor and from her deposition it is also discernible that she herself was a consenting party. From a perusal of the impugned order it is also apparent that a whatsapp chat was also presented before the trial court from which it was discernible that the prosecutrix and her parents were blackmailing the applicant and were illegally coercing for demand of 10 Lakh Rs. 3 From this, it was apparent that the applicant has been falsely implicated for fulfillment of such illegal demand. Therefore, where from the face of record, it is apparent that the applicant has been roped in false case, keeping the applicant incarcerated would not serve any fruitful purpose. It is also apparent from the record that the prosecutrix was not of such a tender age to not understand the pros and cons of her actions and choices. It is also humbly submitted that now the material witnesses have been examined and the applicant is behind bars since 16.11.24 for almost a year. therefore, he may kindly be enlarged on bail. Hence, this application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that, the applicant is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the alleged crime, he has not committed any offence as alleged against him. He further contended that the entire case of prosecution made against the present applicant is false, baseless and fabricated as the same is based on incorrect facts fabricated by the police authorities. He further contended that the applicant was arrested by Police Station Supela, District Durg, Chowki Smriti Nagar on 16.11.2024 for the alleged offence punishable under section 137(1)(b), 87, 83, 64(2)(n), 65(1) BNS r/w S. 6 Pocso Act and 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act and was presented before the concerned court, which further remanded the applicant to judicial custody and despite innocence, the applicant is in judicial custody whereas charge sheet has also been filed. From this it can be inferred that there is no requirement of custodial interrogation of 4 the applicant and in the absence of requirement of custodial interrogation no fruitful result can be obtained by keeping the applicant behind bars. He further contended that it is imperative to state here that from a perusal of the record/charge sheet it is apparent that there was no such allegation that the prosecutrix was subjected to any offence because of her belonging to a specific community and as a matter of routine, offences of the Atrocities Act were added. After culmination of investigation, charge sheet has been filed and the material witnesses including the prosecutrix have been examined before the trial court. From a perusal of the impugned order it is also apparent that a whatsapp chat was also presented before the trial court from which it was discernible that the prosecutrix and her parents were blackmailing the applicant and were illegally coercing for demand of Rs.10 lakh. From this, it was apparent that the applicant has been falsely implicated for fulfillment of such illegal demand. Therefore, where from the face of record, it is apparent that the applicant has been roped in false case, keeping the applicant incarcerated would not serve any fruitful purpose. The applicant is in jail since 16.11.2024 and and trial is likely to take some time, therefore, it is prayed that the applicant may be released on bail. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application submitted by the applicant. 5. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties, perused the case diary and other materials available on record. 5 6. In compliance of order dated 18.11.2025, victim and her mother appeared before this Court through video conferencing from the DLSA Durg. On being asked, she raised objection for grant of bail to the applicant. 7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and further considering the fact that at the time of incident, the victim was aged about 16 years and there was affair between applicant and the victim and on perusal of the record, I have found that the applicant taking the victim to Dongargarh Bamleshwari Mata Temple and filling sindoor and the applicant is in jail since 16.11.2024 and conclusion of the trial may take some more time, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 8. Let the applicant involved in Crime No.1071/2024, registered at Police Station- Supela, Chowki Smriti Nagar, District Durg (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 137(1)(b), 87, 83, 64(2)(n), 65(1) of BNS, Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.10,000/- with one surety in the like sum 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 6 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 his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 of BNS, 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 the 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 BNS, 2023. (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 sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. 9. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Vasant