1 2026:CGHC:786 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 10535 of 2025 Husn Ghritlahre Alias Dadu S/o Jai Singh Ghritlahre Aged About 18 Years Original R/o Village Bhurki Padmi Road P.S. Bemetara, District Bemetara (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Bemetara, District Bemetara (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. F. S. Khare, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 06.01.2026 1. The applicant had preferred this Second Bail Application under Section 483 of BNS Act, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 453/2025, registered at Police Station- Bemetara District – Bemetara (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 64(1), 65(1), 115(2) of BNS Act, 2023 and under Section 4 of POCSO Act, 2012. ARPAN SRIVASTAVA Digitally signed by ARPAN SRIVASTAVA Date: 2026.01.09 11:47:04 +0530 2 2. The First Bail Application filed by the applicant bearing MCRC No.9041/2025, was dismissed as withdrawn vider order dated 24.11.2025. 3. Case of the prosecution is that the applicant enticed away the minor girl from the lawful custody of her parents and committed forcefully rape with her despite knowing that she is a minor girl, thereafter, report was lodged and during the investigation applicant was arrested. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case and has not committed the alleged offence. He submits that that as per the statement of the victim herself, she is a major and a consenting party who voluntarily accompanied the applicant of her own free will and did not raise any alarm at any point of time, thereby falsifying the allegation of force. He submits that the victim was having an affair with the applicant and was a consenting party. He would next contend that the victim was examined before the Trial Court, where she has not supported the prosecution case, and has been declared hostile. Learned counsel further submits that the applicant is been in jail since 11.08.2025, and the charge-sheet has already been filed, the applicant no criminal antecedents of a similar nature and, therefore, he may be grant of bail. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application of the applicant. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 3 7. Having duly considered the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the alleged offence, and particularly the fact that there are no criminal antecedents against the present applicant, it is evident and the investigation has been completed and the charge-sheet has already been filed and the applicant is in jail since 11.08.2025, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is inclined to allow the present application. 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 day, unless exempt from appearance. (ii) He/ She shall not make any attempt to tamper with the prosecution witnesses. (iii) the applicant is directed not 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 Arpan