1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 323 of 2026 Shobhit Singh S/o Shri Ram Prasad Singh Aged About 20 Years R/o Gopalpur, P.S. And Tahsil And District Surajpur, C.G. ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Surajpur, District Surajpur, C.G. ... Respondent For Applicant : Ms. Meena Shastri, Advocate For Respondent/State : Ms. Binu Sharma, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order On Board 21.01.2026 1. The victim is not connected through virtual mode from the concerned DLSA after notice. 2. This is the first bail application filed u/s 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No.242/2025 registered at Police Station Surajpur, District Surajpur (CG) for offence punishable under Sections 65(1), 127(2), 3(5) of BNS and Sections 4(2) & 17 of the POCSO Act, 2012. BHOLA NATH KHATAI Digitally signed by BHOLA NATH KHATAI Date: 2026.01.22 13:55:42 +0530 2 3. As per the prosecution case, on 19.05.2025, mother of the victim lodged a report at Police Station, Surajpur, alleging that on 18.05.2025 accused Manish Singh had sexual intercourse with her minor daughter (victim), while the present applicant assisted in the commission of the offence. Based on the said report, offence was registered against both accused persons and the applicant was arrested on 19.05.2025. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. She submits that the report was lodged by the mother of the victim who has not supported the case of prosecution. Other material prosecution witnesses examined so far have not supported the case of prosecution. She further submits that the applicant is in jail since 19.05.2025, there are total 18 witnesses out of which only 7 witnesses have been examined till date and there is no likelihood of the trial to be concluded at the earliest, therefore, considering all these facts, the applicant may be released on bail. 5. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, opposing the bail application submits that the applicant is named in the FIR and he had helped the main accused by locking the room from outside where the main accused was committing the alleged offence. She further submits that the victim was minor at the time of incident, she has supported the case of prosecution in her court statement and considering the nature of offence, the applicant does not deserve to be released on bail. 3 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the nature and gravity of offence and the material collected and available on record against the applicant, this Court is not inclined to release the applicant on bail. 8. Accordingly, the present bail application stands rejected. 9. However, the trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and to ensure that the trial is concluded as expeditiously as possible. 10. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) JUDGE Khatai