1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 603 of 2026 Dhirendra Kumar Ram @ Dheeran S/o Lt. Jagan Ram Aged About 28 Years R/o Village- Narhi, P/s Kishanpur, District- Supela, Bihar, Currently at - Sanjay Rice Mill, Sakri, Labour Quarter, P/s Vidhansabha, District- Raipur, (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh through P.S. Vidhansabha, District- Raipur, (C.G.) ... Respondent For the Petitioner : Mr. Lukesh Kumar Mishra, Advocate appears through VC For the State : Mrs. Binu Sharma, Panel Lawyer (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Order on Board 31.01.2026 1. This is first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant in Crime No. 533/2025 registered at Police Station Vidhan Sabha, Raipur (CG) for the offences under Sections 65(1) BNS read with Section 4(2) of POCSO Act. 2. As per the prosecution case, the victim’s mother filed a written complaint in Vidhansabha Police Station District Raipur Chhattisgarh stating that on 18.10.2025 at 9.30 pm, her minor daughter came ALLENA ANNAJEE RAO Digitally signed by ALLENA ANNAJEE RAO Date: 2026.01.31 17:23:42 +0530 2 home crying and told that the applicant who was working in a rice mill had removed her clothes and without her consent committed forcible sexual intercourse in the rice mill itself. On such information, the matter was investigated and the applicant was arrested on 20.10.2025. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that no such incident occurred with the victim and the applicant has been falsely implicated by projecting a fabricated story. He further submits that there was delay in registering the FIR. He next submits that even the medical report does not support the prosecution case as the doctor has opined that no definite opinion can be given regarding rape. He submits that the applicant is in jail since 20.10.2025; there are total 14 listed witnesses in this case; the trial has not commenced till date and there is no likelihood of immediate disposal of the case, therefore, the applicant may be enlarged on bail. 4. Per contra, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the victim was minor at the time of incident, the applicant was named in the FIR and the victim in her statement u/s 183 CrPC has clearly supported the prosecution case. 5. Today the victim along with her father has appeared through VC from the concerned DLSA and raised objection to bail. 6. Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and the fact that the trial has not yet commenced, I am not inclined to release the applicant on regular bail at this stage. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Rao