1 / 3 2025:CGHC:59306 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 8215 of 2025 Najmuddin @ Surya S/o Salauddin, Aged About 32 Years At- Ward 04, Tihai Mohalla, 508, Mawana, P/s Mawana, District Merut, U.P. Currently At- Sonis House, Amapara, Rajim, Gariyaband (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through P/s Rajim, District Gariyaband (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Girish Sahu, Advocate For State /Respondent : Ms. Priya Sharma, PL (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board 05/12/2025 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 04/05/2025 in connection with Crime No. 125/25, registered at Police Station Rajim, Gariyaband, C.G. for the offence punishable under Sections 64 (2) (n), 351 (3) of the BNS and Section 4 (2) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA Date: 2025.12.09 11:14:54 +0530 2 / 3 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that the prosecutrix got acquainted with the applicant and taking advantage of which the applicant on 27/04/2025 hold the hand of the prosecutrix and proposed her and thereafter on 03/05/2025 again molested her. Thereafter, the report was lodged and the present applicant was arrested. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that there is contradiction and omission in the statement given by the prosecutrix. He would next contend that the medical report do not corroborate the fact of commission of rape. He would lastly contend that the prosecutrix was on the border line and would submit that the applicant is in jail since 04/05/2025, therefore, he may be enlarged on bail. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bail. 5. Prosecutrix did not appear despite service of notice, therefore, Ms. Ananya Chatterjee, Advocate who is present in the Court has been appointed as amicus curiae in this Case 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 documents would show that the age of the victim is 15 years and 7 months and the age of the applicant is 32 years. Therefore, looking to the allegation against the applicant as he committed rape with the victim and while hearing the bail application no appreciation of evidence can be done. Considering the entire facts & circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail. 8. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected. However, learned trial Court is directed to expedite the trial, if there is no legal impediment. 3 / 3 9. Office is directed to sent a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. SD/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE ashu