1 2025:CGHC:58214 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 8792 of 2025 1 - Gudeshwar Markam @ Babu S/o Besav Markam Aged About 20 Years R/o Gare Besavpara, P.S. Farasgaon District- Kondagaon (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station Farasgaon District- Kondagaon (C.G.) ----Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Pravin Kumar Tulsyan, Advocate For-Non-applicant : Ms. Priya Sharma P.L. Hon’ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 01.12.2025 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. in connection with Crime No. 100/2025, registered at Police Station Farasgaon, District Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh for the offences punishable under Sections 137(2), 65(1), 351(3), 3(5)of B.N.S., Section 4 of POCSO Act. 2. In pursuance of the order dated 04.11.2025, on 18.11.2025 the victim along with her mother appeared before the Court through DLSA Kondagaon, and they have raised their objection in releasing the applicant on bail. Digitally signed by JYOTI JHA Date: 2025.12.03 17:20:58 +0530 2 3. The prosecution story in brief, is that, the father of the victim lodged an FIR on 17.02.2025, the victim had gone to a wedding, where at around 09:00 pm, Hitesh Markam forcibly took the victim out of the wedding house, where the applicant was standing with a motorcycle, both of them forcibly made the victim sit on the motorcycle and took her to “Laadi” built in the field behind the house of Hitesh Markam and the applicant threatened the victim, allegedly committed forcefully sexual intercourse. When the victim returned from the scene of the incident, the applicant threatened to kill her and her parents, if she disclosed the incident to anyone. 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. There were consensual nature of the relationship between the victim and the applicant. No credible medical evidence or injury report has been brought on record to support the allegations of non-consensual sexual intercourse. Moreover, the conduct of the victim after the alleged period of offence, including continued contact and friendly communication with the applicant, negates the claim of coercion or exploitation. He has further argued that there was no evidence adduced by the prosecution with regard to inappropriate behavior of applicant 3 with the prosecutrix. The applicant is in jail since 28.07.2025 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. 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 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