Mahesh Banjare vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 11 June, 2025

Chattisgarh High Court

Mahesh Banjare vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 11 June, 2025

                                         1



                                     Digitally
                             A       signed by
                             ANNAJEE A
                             RAO     ANNAJEE
                                     RAO




                                                    2025:CGHC:23158


                                                                   NAFR

          HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR


                         MCRC No. 3730 of 2025


1 - Mahesh Banjare S/o Shri Manak Lal Banjare Aged About 19 Years
R/o Village Pardeshikapa Police Station Chilfi District - Mungeli (C.G.)
(Name Corretly Mentiones                                    ... Appellant


                                    versus


1 - State of Chhattisgarh through the Station House Officer Police
Station Chilfi District - Mungeli (C.G.)                  ... Respondent

For the appellant : Mr. Parasmani Shrivas, Advocate
For the State : Ms. Laxmin Kashyap, Panel Lawyer.

(Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal)

Order on Board

11/06/2025

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. 164/2024 registered at Police Station Chilfi, District

Mungeli, Chhattisgarh for the offences under Sections 137(2), 64(2) (m)
2

of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 4, 6 of the Protection of

Children from Sexual Offences Act, 20212.

2. The prosecution version is that the father of victim girl has lodged

missing report in P.S. Chilfi stating that his minor daughter 16 years and

6 months had gone to somewhere else and when she did not return,

they searched for the girl but could not trace out her. It is alleged that

during the course of investigation, the girl was recovered from the

possession of the applicant.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that as per the

statements of prosecutrix recorded u/s 161 & 164 CrPC, there was love

relations between the applicant and victim and she had voluntarily

accompanied the applicant. He further submits that when the victim

was found during investigation, both they were living together as

husband and wife after performing the marriage at a temple, therefore,

no offence is made out against the applicant. He also submits that the

parents of the victim have stated her age to be 19 years, therefore, the

prosecutrix is a major lady and even the prosecution authorities did not

seize any relevant documents under the provisions of Juvenile Justice

Act. He further submits that the applicant is in jail since 08.02.2025

and till date, out of 26 witnesses, only 3 have been examined and the

trial will take time, 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 girl and she was recovered from

the possession of applicant.

3

5. The complainant along-with victim has appeared through VC and

has not objected to grant of bail to the applicant.

6. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel

for the parties and further considering the facts and circumstances of

the case, it would not be appropriate to release him on regular bail, at

this stage. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected. However, the

trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and ensure that the trial is

concluded as early as possible.

Sd/-

(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal)
Judge

Rao