1 CGHC010171992026 2026:CGHC:28561 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 4085 of 2026 Ram Netam S/o- Shri Fatte Singh, Aged About 22 Years R/o- Village Palachur, P.S. Durgkondal, District- Uttar Bastar, Kanker (C.G.) (Corrected As Per F.I.R. (Annex.A-2)) ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Station House Officer, Police Station Durgkondal, District- Uttar Bastar Kanker (C.G.) ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Ritika Verma, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 09.07.2026 1. In compliance of the Court's order dated 06.05.2026, notice was issued to the victim/complainant through the S.H.O. of the concerned Police Station, calling upon her to appear before this Court either in person or through video conferencing to raise objections, if any, to the prayer for grant of bail. 2. Vide order dated 01.06.2026, upon perusal of the report submitted by the concerned Police Station, it is revealed that the notice has KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 been duly served upon the father of the victim. 3. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 59/2024, registered at Police Station Durgkondal, District : Uttar Bastar Kanker (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 366(A), 376(3), 376(2)(N) of the IPC and Section 87, 64(1) of BNS, 2023 and Section 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act. 4. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the victim, who was aged about 15 years and 2 months at the relevant time, was allegedly enticed away by the present applicant from the lawful guardianship of her parents on the false promise of marriage. It is alleged that the applicant took the victim to his house as well as to the house of his brother-in-law situated at Village Tekadodha and repeatedly established physical relationship with her. Upon receiving information regarding the aforesaid incident, when the father of the victim went to the house of the applicant to bring back his daughter, the present applicant allegedly assaulted him with a knife causing injuries on his head and abdomen. Consequently, two separate criminal cases came to be registered against the applicant, one for the offences punishable under Sections 366(A), 376(3), 376(2)(N) of the IPC, Sections 87 and 64(1) of the BNS and Sections 4 & 6 of the POCSO Act, and the other for the offences punishable under Sections 296, 109(1) and 3(5) of the BNS. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case and has not 3 committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He submits that the material collected during the course of investigation does not prima facie establish the complicity of the applicant in the alleged offence. He further submits that the prosecution has already filed the charge-sheet and therefore, no further custodial interrogation of the applicant is required. It is further submitted that the medical evidence does not support the prosecution case and there is an inordinate and unexplained delay in lodging the First Information Report. He further submits that the present prosecution has been initiated on account of old enmity between the parties. He also submits that the applicant is in judicial custody since 09.12.2024 and, so far as the progress of the trial is concerned, out of 28 prosecution witnesses, only 7 witnesses have been examined, therefore, the conclusion of the trial is likely to take considerable time. Accordingly, it is prayed that the applicant be enlarged on regular bail. 6. On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State opposes the bail application and submits that the victim was a minor girl aged about 15 years and 2 months at the time of the incident. She further submits that the applicant, on the false promise of marriage, kidnapped the victim from the lawful guardianship of her parents and repeatedly established physical relationship with her. She further submits that when the father of the victim went to the house of the applicant to bring back the victim, the present applicant assaulted him with a knife, causing injuries on his head and abdomen, on account of which, he sustained grievous injuries 4 hence, two separate criminal cases have been registered against the applicant arising out of the same chain of events. She further submits that the allegations against the applicant are serious in nature and the charge-sheet has already been filed. Therefore, looking to the nature and gravity of the offences, the applicant is not entitled to be enlarged on bail. 7. The victim has appeared through District Legal Services Authority (DLSA) and has vehemently objected the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of the allegations levelled against the present applicant, the material available on record, the fact that, as per the prosecution case, the victim was a minor girl aged about 15 years and 2 months at the relevant point of time and the allegation against the applicant is that on the false promise of marriage he enticed her away from the lawful guardianship of her parents and repeatedly established physical relationship with her, coupled with the further allegation that when the victim's father went to the house of the applicant to take back the victim, the present applicant assaulted him with a knife causing grievous injuries on his head and abdomen, on account of which two separate cases have been registered against the applicant, this Court finds that two criminal cases have arisen against the applicant out of the same chain of events. It is also pertinent to note that the victim appeared through DLSA and has 5 specifically opposed the present bail application. Further, although the charge-sheet has been filed and out of 28 prosecution witnesses, 7 witnesses have already been examined, considering the seriousness of the allegations, the grievous nature of the injuries sustained by the victim's father, the stage of the trial and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is not inclined to extend the benefit of regular bail to the applicant. 10. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant namely Ram Netam, involved in Crime No. 59/2024, registered at Police Station Durgkondal, District : Uttar Bastar Kanker (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 366(A), 376(3), 376(2)(N) of the IPC and Section 87, 64(1) of BNS, 2023 and Section 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act, is rejected. 11. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 12. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal