1 2025:CGHC:10248 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 1214 of 2025 1 - Rajeshwar Goyal S/o Likchand Goyal Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Baghmar, Police Station Fasterpur, Tehsil Lormi, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Pandariya, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Rahil Arun Kochar, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Karan Kumar Baharani, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 03.03.2025 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested on 16.07.2024 in connection with Crime No. 141/2024, registered at Police Station – Pandariya, District – Kabirdham (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376(2)(n) of IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act, 2012. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that a written complaint was lodged on 11.04.2024 by the father of the prosecutrix in Police Station Pandariya District Kabirdham vide Crime No. 141/2024 under Section 363 of IPC against unknown person it is alleged that on 08.04.2024 in ABHIGYA SAXENA Digitally signed by ABHIGYA SAXENA 2 the evening the prosecutrix went out of the house for toilet, but she did not return home therefore it is alleged that some unknown person has allured her and took her away, that on written report upon investigation the applicant was arrested on 16.07.2024, it was alleged that prosecutrix aged about 16 years and 6 months on pretext of marriage the applicant has made sexual assault upon her. 3. It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case and there is no criminal antecedent against the present applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that there is contradiction and omission in the statement of prosecutrix. He would further submits that the prosecutrix has traveled several places, also left Bilaspur with him and stayed with him in his house for about three months and did not alarm or reported the incident to any one. He further submits that the doctor has examined the prosecutrix on 16.07.2024 and has opined that there is no sign of internal or external injury or signs of forceful sexual assault medical report is annexed as Annexure A-2. The prosecutrix is major girl aged about 18 years. It is apparent that there is love affair between the prosecutrix and the present applicant. The applicant is in jail since 16.07.2024 and trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion, therefore, he prays for grant of bail. 4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the prosecutrix/victim aged less than 18 years, allegations against the applicant is serious in nature and the present applicant on the pretext of marriage made sexual relation. Therefore, he is not entitled for grant of bail. 5. The victim along with her parents appeared through video 3 conferenceing heavily opposes the bail application of the present applicant. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused all of the documents available on record. 7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of offence and the fact that there is no criminal antecedents against the present applicant, charge-sheet has been filed against the applicant. It is clear that the present applicant and the prosecutrix has love affair with each other. The doctor has examined the prosecutrix on 16.07.2024 and has opined that there is no sign of internal or external injury or signs of forceful sexual assault. The present applicant is in jail since 16.07.2024 and conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, I am inclined to allow this application. 8. Let applicant, Rajeshwar Goyal, involved in connection with Crime No. 141/2024, registered at Police Station – Pandariya, District – Kabirdham (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376(2)(n) of IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act, 2012, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.10,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through 4 his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 351 of BNSS. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. 9. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Saxena