1 2025:CGHC:10247 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 1217 of 2025 1 - Frances Rao S/o V.N. Prashad Rao Aged About 37 Years R/o Avenue A.G. 46 Sector 07 Civic Center Bhilai P.S. Bhilai Nagar District Durg Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Lalbagh District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Aditya Bharadwaj, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Vaishali Mahilong, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board 03.03.2025 1. This is the First Bail Application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Shuraksha Sanhita for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested on 13.11.2024 in connection with Crime No.507/2024, registered at Police Station - Lalbagh, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 296, 115, 351, 74 & 64(M) of Bharatiya Nayaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 7/8 of Protection Of Children from Sexual Offences Act. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on the night of November ABHIGYA SAXENA Digitally signed by ABHIGYA SAXENA 2 18, 2024, around 11:00 PM, the applicant, Francis Rao, allegedly outraged the modesty of the prosecutrix (the complainant's daughter) by forcibly grabbing her hand and inappropriately touching her with the intention of insulting her. When the complainant and her daughter resisted, the applicant reportedly began abusing them with obscene language and threatening to kill them. He then allegedly pulled their hair and physically assaulted them. Based on the complainant's report, a criminal case was registered. Subsequently, the prosecutrix’s statement was recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC, wherein she stated that, in her mother's absence, the applicant had forcibly established physical relations with her multiple times and threatened to kill her if she disclosed the incident to anyone. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. He further submits that the complainant and prosecutrix have turned hostile during the examination before the trial Court and have not supported the case of prosecution. He would further submit that an additional allegation of sexual assault has been recorded in the statement of prosecutrix which was not initially mentioned in the First Information Report, this causes doubts about their credibility. Further, applicant is in jail since 13.11.2024 and trial is likely to take some time, therefore, it is prayed that the applicant may be released on bail. 4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the bail application and submits that the prosecutrix/victim is aged about 13 years, allegations against the applicant is serious in nature. Learned State counsel further submits that the present applicant had tried to molest prosecutrix by touching her inappropriately, when 3 complainant and her daughter resisted then the applicant started abusing them with obscene language and threatened to kill them and also committed marpeet with the complainant. Therefore, he is not entitled for grant of bail. Learned counsel for the State further stated that the notice to the victim has already been served. 5. Ms. Seema Verma, Advocate, who is present in the Court is appointed as amicus curiae to assist the Court on behalf of the victim, after going through the documents available on record, Ms. Verma, opposes the prayer and submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant for grant of bail. 6. The prosecutrix/victim along with her mother appeared before this Court through video conferencing have made no objection to the bail application of the present applicant and submitted to release the applicant on bail. 7. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties, perused the case diary and other materials available on record. 8. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the prosecutrix/victim is aged about 13 years, allegations against the applicant is serious in nature and the present applicant had tried to molest prosecutrix by touching her inappropriately, also uses obscene language, threatened to kill them and also committed marpeet with the complainant, therefore, this Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant on regular bail. Accordingly, the bail application of applicant – Frances Rao involved in Crime No. 507/2024, registered at Police Station - Lalbagh, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 296, 115, 351, 74 & 64(M) of Bharatiya Nayaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 7/8 of 4 Protection Of Children from Sexual Offences Act, is rejected. 9. Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and shall try to conclude the same expeditiously as soon as possible if there is no legal impediment. 10.Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Saxena