1 2025:CGHC:55953 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 8329 of 2025 1 - Rajdeep Toppo S/o Rugan Toppo Aged About 30 Years Occu - Literate Unemployed R/o Village Dhelsara P.S. And Tehsil Sitapur District Surguja (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Station House Officer, P.S. Sitapur, District Surguja (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant (s) : Shri Nishikant Sinha, Advocate For Respondent/State : Ms. Nupur Trivedi, PL For Complainant : Shri Bhupendra Shriwas, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board 17/11/2025 The applicant has filed this first bail application under Section 483 of the BNSS for grant of regular bail as he is in custody in connection 2 with Crime No. 381/2025 registered at police station Sitapur, District Surguja (CG) for the offence punishable under Sections 64(2)(m) and 65(1) of BNS and Sections 4(2) and 6 of the POCSO Act. 2. Prosecution case in brief is that report was lodged by the prosecutrix against the applicant alleging that she was in relation with the applicant since 2014 and he had allured her on the pretext of marriage and developed physical relations with her as a result of which she became pregnant. However, after giving birth to a child, he died subsequently and she asked the applicant on many occasions to marry her but he refused to marry and therefore, the report has been lodged. 4. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. He submits that there was delay of ten years in lodging the FIR and now she is a major aged about 28 years. He further submits that she maintained her relations with the applicant for ten years and when he refused to marry her, a report was lodged. Lastly, he submits that the applicant is in jail since 21.09.2025, he is ready and willing to comply with any of the conditions which may be imposed upon him and thus, it is submitted that the application be allowed and the applicant be released on bail. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent/State, on the other hand, has opposed the bail application. 6. Counsel for the complainant/Victim and she herself was present in the court and has raised objection. 7. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3 8. On due consideration of the rival submissions and the fact that the applicant is in jail since 21.09.2025 and that there was a delay of about 10 years in lodging the FIR and that the final disposal of the trial is likely to take sufficiently long time, the present application deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, his bail application is allowed. 9. It is directed that in the event of applicant executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety to the satisfaction of the concerned trial court, he shall be released on bail on the following conditions: i) He shall appear before the trial court regularly on each and every date, unless exempted from appearance. ii) He shall not make any attempt to tamper with the prosecution witnesses. Iii) the applicant is directed not to communicate/contact in any manner with the prosecutrix, her family members and the witnesses cited in the charge sheet any other person concerned or attempt to ask for any favour in the trial directly or indirectly. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge SUGUNA DUBEY Digitally signed by SUGUNA DUBEY Date: 2025.11.28 11:22:09 +0530