1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 313 of 2026 Lal Das Suryavanshi S/o Rajkumar Suryavanshi Aged About 22 Years R/o - Bhathapara Village Birebhat P.S. - Nandini Nagar District - Durg (C.G.) (Particulars Of The Applicant Is Not Properly Mentioned In The Impugned Order Which Is Being Mentioned As Per Charge Sheet) ... Applicant Versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Sho Police Station - Nandini Nagar, District - Durg (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Avinash Chand Sahu, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Vithika Choubey, P.L. (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR JAISWAL) Order Sheet 31/01/2026 1. The applicant has preferred this first bail application under Section 483 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita Act, 2023 for grant of regular bail as he is arrested in connection with Crime No. 214/2025, registered at Police Station – Nandini Nagar, District- Durg (C.G.) for offence punishable under Sections 137(2), 87, 64(2) (E) of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita 2023 and 5(L), 6 of POCSO Act. 2 2. As per the prosecution’s case, on 01.09.2025, complainant lodged a complain at Police Station: Nandini Nagar, that since 23.08.2025 his daughter is missing and some unknown person has abducted her from the legal guardianship of her parents without their consent and during the investigation the fact came into knowledge that she has been abducted by the present applicant with the intention of committing illicit sexual intercourse or knowing that she would be forced for or seduced for illicit sexual intercourse and the applicant took her to Secunderabad and performed marriage with the girl dishonestly and frequently performed the act of marriage and forcibly established physical relationship with the victim. Based on the above, offence has been registered against the applicant. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the crime in question. He submits that there was a love relationship between the applicant and the victim is a consenting party, there is delay in lodging the FIR and for which no explanation has been given. He further submits that there were some monetary dispute between the father of the victim and the applicant, therefore, false case has been lodged against the applicant. Hence, it is prayed that the applicant may be enlarged on bail. 4. Today, the victim along with her mother appeared through V.C. from the concerned DLSA and they have raised objection regarding grant of bail to the applicant. 5. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and the overall evidence collected by the prosecution against the applicant, and also 3 looking to the gravity of the offence, at this stage, without commenting on the merits of the case, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail. 7. Accordingly, the bail application filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023, is rejected. 8. Office is directed to sent a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) JUDGE Saurabh