1 2025:CGHC:12071 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 1335 of 2025 Vedprasad Mohale S/o Manohar Mohale Aged About 30 Years R/o Phandwani, Presently Residing At- Pandariya Road, Near Pani Tanki, Mungeli, Dist.- Mungeli (CG) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through SHO Of Police Station- City Kotwali, Mungeli, District – Mungeli (CG) ---- Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Pallav Mishra, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Hariom Rai, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 11.03.2025 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 in connection with Crime No. 515/2024, registered at Police Station – City Kotwali, Mungeli, District – Mungeli (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 127, 64 and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). 2. The case of the prosecution, is that the complainant lodged complaint that she was forcefully and wrongfully confined by the applicant and she RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 was also subjected to be raped by him, when she objected she was threatened by the applicant. On the basis of such report, FIR was lodged against the accused. Hence, this application. 3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. It is submitted that the victim is a major girl aged about 20 years and there was some love affair made between the applicant and the victim, and thereafter, further the victim demanded some money from the applicant and the applicant could not give the same and he just gave Rs. 1500/- to the victim, hence, she filed the FIR, the FSL report regarding the slide and underwear of the victim is negative. It is also submitted that the charge-sheet has been filed in this case. The applicant is in jail since 25.12.2024 and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take quite long time. Therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case. It is further submitted that the complainant lodged complaint that she was forcefully and wrongfully confined by the applicant and she was also subjected to be raped by him, when she objected she was threatened by the applicant. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled for grant of regular bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity 3 of allegation leveled against the applicant and period of detention in jail, further the fact that the victim is a major girl aged about 20 years and there was some love affair made between the applicant and the victim, and thereafter, further the victim demanded some money from the applicant and the applicant could not give the same and he just gave Rs. 1500/- to the victim, hence, she filed the FIR, the FSL report regarding the slide and underwear of the victim is negative, also the fact that the charge-sheet has been filed in the present case, the applicant is in jail since 25.12.2024 and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take quite long time, hence, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 7. Let applicant, Vedprasad Mohale, involved in Crime No. 515/2024, registered at Police Station – City Kotwali, Mungeli, District – Mungeli (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 127, 64 and 351(2) of the BNS, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties 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 his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufÏcient 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, 4 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 sufÏcient 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. 8. OfÏce is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar