1 2025:CGHC:11866 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 1488 of 2025 1 - Aakash Toppo S/o Madan Toppo Aged About 21 Years R/o Village Ramnagar P.S.- Ambikapur District- Sarguja (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House OfÏcer, Police Station Mahila Thana Ambikapur, District- Sarguja (C.G.) ----Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Yatharth Singh, Advocate For-Non-applicant : Ms. Prabha Sharma, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 10.03.2025 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. in connection with Crime No. 21/2024, registered at Police Station Mahila Thana Ambikapur District Sarguja, Chhattisgarh for the offences punishable under Section 341, 363, 366, 376(3), 376(DA) of the IPC and Section 06 of POCSO Act. 2. The prosecution story in brief, is that, as per prosecution story, Digitally signed by JYOTI JHA Date: 2025.03.12 11:17:33 +0530 2 the prosecutrix being the complainant herself came to Police Station Mahila Thana, Ambikapur along with her father and uncle and lodged a written complaint alleging therein that on the night of 09-10.06.2024 at around 02:00 AM while she was returning along with friends from a marriage function, in the way the accused persons caught hold her and committed sexual intercourse with her and thereafter left her to her house. On the next day when her mother was searching for her, she asked the victim as to what happened, then the victim narrated the incident, thereafter the report was lodged against the applicant and other three persons for committing gang rape upon the minor girl. On the basis of which FIR was registered and offence was registered against them. 3. Learned Counsel for the convicts/appellant has argued that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case and there is no evidence on record to connect the appellant with commission of the offence. He has further argued that there was no evidence adduced by the prosecution with regard to inappropriate behavior of appellant with the prosecutrix. The appellant is in jail since 13.06.2024 and the appeal is likely to take some time for its conclusion, hence the appellant has filed the instant application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail. 4. An objection has been filed on behalf of the State/respondent. 3 It was argued by the State Counsel that looking to the age i.e. 13 years of the Prosecutrix and the gravity of offence committed by the Appellant, he does not deserve to be released on bail. The findings arrived at by the learned trial Court is just and proper. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records of the Court below. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly taking into consideration the gravity of offence committed by the appellant along with co-accused persons and also considering the fact that the age of the Prosecutrix i.e., 13 years, at the time of the incident, this Court finds it appropriate to reject the instant application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail, at this stage. 7. However, this Court hope and trust that the trial Court shall make an earnest endeavour to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible, if there is no legal impediment. 8. OfÏce is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Jyoti