1 2025:CGHC:9925 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 1028 of 2025 1 - Suraj Yadav S/o Chendeshwari Yadav Aged About 21 Years R/o Madhubani, Police Station Lalit Gram, District Supaul (Bihar) (Wrongly Mentioned As Suraj Kumar Yadav On 1st Page Of Order Sheet) ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station - Rajpur, District Balrampur - Ramanujgang (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Shri Amarnath Pandey, Advocate For Respondent/State : Ms. Sunita Sahu, PL (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board 27/02/2025 The applicant has filed this bail application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrrik Suraksha Sanhita for grant of regular bail as he is in custody in connection with Crime No. 223/2022 registered at police station Rajpur, District Balrampur (CG) for the offence punishable under Sections 366,366(A) and 376(2)(n) IPC and Section 4 & 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. SUGUNA DUBEY Digitally signed by SUGUNA DUBEY Date: 2025.03.01 13:39:14 +0530 2 2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that the victim along with her father visited the house of one Pooja Tiwari where she stayed for few days and her father returned home. During her stay, the victim got acquainted with a girl who worked in the house of Pooja Tiwari. Thereafter, the victim along with the said girl, left to Lucknow by train and the victim was left by the girl. The victim then boarded another train and reached Amritsar where she was engaged by one oldman as domestic help. It is during this period, the victim came in contact with one Suraj Yadav who developed physical relation with the victim on the pretext of marriage. Thereafter he took the victim to his village Madhubani, District Supaul, Bihar. The report was lodged by Pooja Tiwari at police station Rajpur and during investigation the victim was recovered from the custody of the accused in Bihar. 3. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. He submits that the prosecutrix has not supported the case of prosecution in her court statement and they are now married and having one child. He submits that the applicant is in jail since 26.08.2024, the charge sheet has been filed and the trial is likely to take some time, he is ready and willing to comply with any of the conditions which may be imposed upon him and thus, it is submitted that the application be allowed and the applicant be released on bail. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent/State, on the other hand, has opposed the bail application. 5. Victim and her father appeared through the concerned DLSA and they have no objection if the applicant is granted bail. 6. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3 7. On due consideration of the rival submissions and the fact that the applicant is in jail since 26.08.2024, the charge sheet has been filed and looking to the fact that the prosecutrix and the applicant have got married and that the final disposal of the trial is likely to take sufficiently long time, the present application deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, his bail application is allowed. 8. It is directed that in the event of applicant executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety to the satisfaction of the concerned trial court, he shall be released on bail on the following conditions: i) He shall appear before the trial court regularly on each and every date, unless exempted from appearance. ii) He shall not make any attempt to tamper with the prosecution witnesses. Iii) the applicant is directed not to communicate/contact in any manner with the prosecutrix, her family members and the witnesses cited in the charge sheet any other person concerned or attempt to ask for any favour in the trial directly or indirectly. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge