1 2025:CGHC:60387 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 9567 of 2025 • Rahul Chelkar S/o. Late Shri Thaneshwar Chelkar, Aged About 21 Years R/o Mini Basti, Jarhabhata, Thana- Civil Line, District Bilaspur (C.G.).....(Shri Dhaniram Banjare Is Second Husband Of Smt. Aarti Banjare (As Per Affidavit)) ... Applicant. versus • State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer Police Station Sirgitti, District Bilaspur (C.G.) --- Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Imran Ahmad, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Ishan Verma, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Vivek Sharma, PL. Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 11/12/2025 1. This is first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 for grant of regular bail to applicant, who has been arrested in connection with Crime No.644/2024, registered at PS -Sirgitti, District Bilaspur (C.G.), for commission of 2 offence punishable under Sections 64(2)(M), 65(1), 351(2) of BNS and Section 3/4 (2), 5(L)/6 of the POCSO Act. 2. Case of prosecution, in brief, is that the applicant has committed forceful sexual intercourse with minor victim (aged about 12 years, 17 months and 11 days) on many occasion (from 20.04.2023 to 11.09.2024) at various places and threatened her not to disclose the incident to anyone. Based upon report, FIR was registered and applicant has been arrested in aforementioned crime/offence. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in this case, he has not committed any offence as alleged against him. There is delay in lodging of FIR, which has not been explained properly by the prosecution. Though there is allegation that the applicant has committed forceful sexual intercourse with the victim on many occasion (from 20.04.2023 to 11.09.2024) at various places, but there is no any eye-witness who saw the alleged incident. There is no any other criminal antecedent against the applicant. Applicant is in jail since 19.09.2025, conclusion of trial may take some time, hence, applicant may be released on bail. 4. Per contra, learned State Counsel opposing the bail application of the applicant. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. Pursuant to order of this Court’s dated 26.11.2025, victim alongwith her father appeared before this Court and they raised objection in 3 granting bail to the applicant. 7. Considering facts of the case, nature of allegations, submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the fact that applicant has established sexual intercourse with minor victim (aged about 12 years, 17 months and 11 days) on many occasion at various places, further considering that victim has raised objection in granting bail to the applicant, I am not inclined to allow this bail application. 8. Accordingly, bail application is rejected. Certified copy as per rules. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge J/-