1 2025:CGHC:12422 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 1609 of 2025 1 - Ramkumar Sahu Son On Pachkau Sahu Aged About 42 Years Resident Of Saradih, P.S. -Suhela, District - Balodabazar - Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House OfÏcer, Police Station - Suhela, District- Balodabazar - Bhatapara (C.G.) ----Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Vishal Sahu, Advocate For-Non-applicant : Ms. Priya sharma, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 12.03.2025 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. in connection with Crime No. 219/2024, registered at Police Station Suhela, District Balodabazar Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh for the offences punishable under Sections 64, 64(f)(j)(m), 351(2) of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhta, 2023 and Section 4 & 6 of POCSO Act, 2012. 2. The prosecution story in brief, is that, as per prosecution story, 3. on 30.08.2024, one Smt. Tukeshwari Sahu lodged report Digitally signed by JYOTI JHA Date: 2025.03.18 11:18:03 +0530 2 regarding missing of prosecutrix daughter. On the basis of said report, the offence under Section 137(2) of BNS was registered. During investigation, the prosecutrix was recovered and her statement was recorded, in which she disclosed that the applicant has committed sexual intercourse with her on 27.08.2024 and 28.08.2024. On the basis of which FIR was registered and offence was registered against him. 4. Notice issued to the victim has duly been served, however, no one appeared on behalf of the victim. In such circumstances, Ms. Seema Verma, Advocate, who is present in the Court is appointed as amicus curiae to assist the Court on behalf of the victim. 5. After going through the documents, Ms. Seema Verma, Advocate, appointed as amicus curiae, opposes the prayer for grant of bail for the applicant. 6. 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 03.09.2024 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 3 bail. 7. 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 Appellant who is the father of the prosecutrix, he does not deserve to be released on bail. The findings arrived at by the learned trial Court is just and proper. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records of the Court below. 9. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly taking into consideration the gravity of offence committed by the appellant who is the father of the prosecutrix and also considering the statement of the prosecutrix, this Court finds it appropriate to reject the instant application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail, at this stage. 10. 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. 11. OfÏce is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Jyoti