1 2025:CGHC:14235 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 1401 of 2025 1 - Shubham Sarkar S/o Suresh Sarkar Aged About 23 Years R/o Dev Baloda, Near Railway Track, Charoda, Bhilai, District - Durg (C.G.). ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House OfÏcer, G.R.P. Thana, Bhilai, District - Durg (C.G.). ----Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate For-Non-applicant : Ms. Sunita Sahu, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 25.03.2025 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. in connection with Crime No. 145/2023, registered at Police Station G.R.P. Thana Bhilai District Durg, Chhattisgarh for the offences punishable under Sections 376 (3), 376(2)(n), 506 of IPC, Section 6 of POCSO and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 2. The prosecution story in brief, is that, as per prosecution story, on 21.11.2023, the mother of prosecutrix lodged report at Police Digitally signed by JYOTI JHA Date: 2025.03.26 10:58:57 +0530 2 Station, GRP Thana, Bhilai, alleging therein that on 15.11.2023 at about 08:00 P.M., while the prosecutrix was going to shop for purchasing biscuit, at that time, the applicant came there, closed her mouth and taken her near Dev Baloda Railway Track and committed sexual intercourse with her and threatened her for dire consequences if she will narrate the incident to anyone. On the basis of which FIR was registered and offence was registered against him. 3. Notice issued to the victim has duly been served, however, no one appeared on behalf of the victim. In such circumstances, Ms. Aditi Diwan, Advocate, who is present in the Court is appointed as amicus curiae to assist the Court on behalf of the victim. 4. After going through the documents, Ms. Aditi Diwan, Advocate, appointed as amicus curiae, opposes the prayer for grant of bail for the applicant. 5. Learned Counsel for the convicts/applicant has argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case and there is no evidence on record to connect the applicant with commission of the offence. He has further argued that there was no evidence adduced by the prosecution with regard to inappropriate behavior of applicant with the prosecutrix. The applicant is in jail since 23.11.2023 and the appeal is likely to take some time for its conclusion, hence the applicant has filed 3 the instant application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail. 6. An objection has been filed on behalf of the State/respondent. It was argued by the State Counsel that the gravity of offence committed by the applicant, thus he does not deserve to be released on bail. The findings arrived at by the learned trial Court is just and proper. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records of the Court below. 8. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly taking into consideration the gravity of offence committed by the applicant and also considering the statement of the prosecutrix and age of the prosecutrix was 15 years and 5 months at the time of incident, this Court finds it appropriate to reject the instant application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail, at this stage. 9. OfÏce is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Jyoti