1 2025:CGHC:14156 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 1533 of 2025 1 - Mayuresh Meshram @ Shera S/o Nand Kumar Meshram Aged About 33 Years R/o Koshanagar Marathi Mohalla Supela Police Station Supela District Durg (C.G.) ... Applicants) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer, P.S.- Supela, District- Durg (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Shri Aman Tamrakar, Advocate For Respondent/State : Ms. Laxmeen Kashyap, PL (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board 24/03/2025 The applicant has filed this bail application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrrik Suraksha Sanhita for grant of regular bail as he is in custody in connection with Crime No. 314/2024 registered at police station Supela, District Durg (CG) for the offence punishable under Sections 140(4), 296, 351(3) of the BNS and Sections 4 (2) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. SUGUNA DUBEY Digitally signed by SUGUNA DUBEY Date: 2025.03.25 16:22:51 +0530 2 Prosecution case in brief is that on 28.09.2024, father of the minor victim lodged a report alleging that one month prior to the lodging of the report, the applicant had abducted his son and committed carnal intercourse with him. It is alleged that when the applicant narrated the incident to his father, the report was lodged. 3. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. He submits that there was some dispute between the father of the victim and the applicant in respect of illegal relationship with the wife of the deceased and he used the minor a a tool in lodging a false report against the applicant. He submits that there was a delay on one month in lodging the FIR and there is no explanation given by the prosecution. He submits that the material witness of the case has been examined and he has not supported the case of prosecution. He further submits that the applicant is in jail since 29.09.2024, the charge sheet has been filed and the trial is likely to take some time, he is ready and willing to comply with any of the conditions which may be imposed upon him and thus, it is submitted that the application be allowed and the applicant be released on bail. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent/State, on the other hand, has opposed the bail application. 5. Victim appeared through the concerned DLSA and have no objection for grant of bail. 6 Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. On due consideration of the rival submissions and the fact that there was a delay of one month in lodging the FIR and the statement of the witnesses recorded as also the fact that the applicant is in jail since 3 29.09.2024, the charge sheet has been filed and looking to the fact that the final disposal of the trial is likely to take sufficiently long time, the present application deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, his bail application is allowed. 8. It is directed that in the event of applicant executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety to the satisfaction of the concerned trial court, he shall be released on bail on the following conditions: i) He/she shall appear before the trial court regularly on each and every date, unless exempted from appearance. ii) He/she shall not make any attempt to tamper with the prosecution witnesses. Iii) the applicant is directed not to communicate/contact in any manner with the prosecutrix, her family members and the witnesses cited in the charge sheet any other person concerned or attempt to ask for any favour in the trial directly or indirectly. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge