1 2025:CGHC:56133 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 8433 of 2025 1 - Maniram Kurrey S/o Chotan Lal Kurrey Aged About 30 Years R/o Near Kanhera Pond, P.S. Urla, District - Raipur (C.G.) ---- Applicant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through OfÏcer In Charge Police Station Urla, District - Raipur (C.G.) ----Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Prahalad Panda, Advocate For-Non-applicant : Ms. Nupur Trivedi, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 18.11.2025 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. in connection with Crime No. 129/2025, registered at Police Station Urla District Raipur, Chhattisgarh for the offences punishable under Sections 64 and 65(2) of B.N.S., Section 4(2) of POCSO. 2. In pursuance of the order dated 17.10.2025, the victim appeared before the Court through DLSA Raipur, and she has raised her objection in releasing the applicant on bail. 3. The prosecution story in brief, is that, as per prosecution story, on 2 26.06.2025, a written report was lodged by the mother of the victim at Urla Police Station to the effect that on the morning of 25.06.2025, she was at work and her daughter aged about 13 years and 7 months, had been mentally challenged since childhood and was at home. The Complainant’ son Kesh Lal Nishad told her when she returned home in the evening that the accused Maniram Kurre, had committed a wrong with her daughter/victim. On the basis of which FIR was registered and offence was registered against him. 4. Learned Counsel for the convicts/applicant has argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case and there is no evidence on record to connect the applicant with commission of the offence. He has further argued that there was no evidence adduced by the prosecution with regard to inappropriate behavior of applicant with the prosecutrix. The applicant is in jail since 26.06.2025 and the appeal is likely to take some time for its conclusion, hence the applicant has filed the instant application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail. 5. An objection has been filed on behalf of the State/respondent. It was argued by the State Counsel that considering the gravity of offence committed by the applicant, he does not deserve to be released on bail. The findings arrived at by the learned trial Court is just and proper. 3 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records of the Court below. 7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly taking into consideration the fact that the prosecutrix is a mentally challenged girl and the gravity of offence committed by the applicant and also considering the statement of the prosecutrix and age of the prosecutrix was about 14 years at the time of incident, this Court finds it appropriate to reject the instant application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail, at this stage. 8. OfÏce is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Jyoti