1 2025:CGHC:9597 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRC No. 937 of 2025 • Kushal Sarthi S/o Sadanand Sarthi Aged About 24 Years R/o Village Bhatpur, Thana Kotra Road, District- Raigarh, (C.G.). ... Applicant(s) versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station- Chhal, District- Raigarh (C.G.). --- Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Awadh Tripathi, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Karan Bahrani, PL. Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 25/02/2025 1. Victim is not appeared before this Court, though notice has been duly served, hence, Ms. Payal Jain, Advocate appointed as Amicus Curiae to assist the Court on behalf of the victim/complainant. 2. This is Second 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.41/2021, registered at PS -Chhal, District -Raigarh, (Chhattisgarh), for offence punishable under Sections 363, 366, 354, 368 & 376 of IPC; Section 6 & 12 of the POCSO Act and Section 67(A) of the IT Act. 3. First bail application of the applicant was dismissed on merits by this Court vide order dated 16.07.2021 in MCRC No.3239/2021. 2 4. As per prosecution case, the applicant allured the minor prosecutrix with promise to marry her, then took her to his own house. The father of the minor prosecutrix brought the prosecutrix back. Subsequent to which, the applicant continuously threatened and harassed the prosecutrix and her father saying, that he will make the obscene photographs of the prosecutrix viral. Subsequent to which, photographs was made viral, hence, the FIR was lodged and based upon which, applicant has been arrested. 5. 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 properly explained by the prosecution. The prosecutrix was not minor on the date of alleged incident and statement of prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 CrPC is in favor of applicant. There is no any other criminal antecedent against the applicant. Applicant is in jail since 05.03.2021, conclusion of trial may take some time, hence, applicant may be released on bail. 6. Per contra, learned State Counsel opposing the bail application of the applicant and would submit that victim in her evidence before the trial Court has stated that on 10.12.2020, present applicant has committed sexual intercourse with her on the pretext of marriage in his house. She also stated that this applicant has viral her obscene photographs on the face book. Hence, looking to the act of the applicant, he is not entitled for grant of bail. 7. Learned Amicus Curiae objected the bail application of the applicant. 8. Considering facts of the case, nature of allegations, submission of learned counsel for the parties, evidence of the victim, further the fact that first bail application of the applicant was dismissed on merits vide 3 order dated 16.07.2021 and there is no substantial change in circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to allow this bail application. 9. Accordingly, bail application is hereby rejected. However, looking to the detention period of the applicant, trial Court concerned is directed to expedite the trial within a period of ‘06 months’ from the date of receipt of copy of this order, if there is no legal impediment. Certified copy as per rules. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge J.