1 / 3 2025:CGHC:55952 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 8357 of 2025 Raju Kamar S/o Late Shri Dashrath Kamar Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Piperchhedi Kamarpara Police Station Chhura, District - Gariyaband (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer Police Station Chhura, District- Gariyaband (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Shivendu Pandya, Advocate For State /Respondent : Ms. Priya Sharma, Panel Lawyer (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board 17/11/2025 1. This is the first 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 14/05/2025 in connection with Crime No. 65/2025, registered at Police Station Chhura, District Gariyaband, C.G. for the offence punishable under Sections 64 (1) & 65 (1) of the B.N.S. and Section 4 & 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (As per charge-sheet) and Section 65 (1) of the BNS and Section 4 ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA Date: 2025.11.19 15:36:54 +0530 2 / 3 (2) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012 (As per Charge Framed by the learned trial Court). 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that the present applicant made sexual relationship with the prosecutrix without her consent. On the said act of the accused/applicant the mother of the prosecutrix lodged the written report to the Police Station and on the said report offence was registered against the applicant and he was arrested. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the prosecutrix is a major girl on the date of incident. He would next contend that the applicant has been falsely implicated and he has not committed any offence as alleged against him. He would next contend that the medical report also do not support the case of the prosecution and the FSL report is also in favour of the applicant. He would next contend that the police has recorded the statement of the relatives of the prosecutrix as such their testimony cannot be believed. He would lastly contend that the prosecutrix is a major lady and would submit that the applicant is in jail since 14/05/2025, therefore, he may be enlarged on bail. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bail. 5. The prosecutrix along with her mother appeared through video conferencing from DLSA Gariyaband and she raised objection with regard to grant of bail to the applicant. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 7. Perusal of the statements would show that the prosecutrix has turned hostile, however, the medical report would show that the hymen of the prosecutrix was ruptured and the age of the victim is 13 years and 06 3 / 3 months. Therefore, the veracity of the statement of the prosecutrix is required to be tested before the trial Court and while hearing the bail, this Court will refrain itself to go into the merits of the case. Considering the same, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail. 8. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected. SD/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE ashu