1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 10317 of 2025 1 - Daya Ram Yadav S/o Shri Panch Ram Yadav Aged About 21 Years R/o Village Chhirali, Police Station - Suhela, District Baloda Bazar (C.G.) Present Address - Bhagwati Packaging Factory, Birgaon, Labouir Quarter, Police Station - Khamtarai, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Station House Officer, Police Station - Vidhan Sabha, District - Raipur (C.G.) ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Ram Krishna Dixit, Advocate. For Non-applicant(s) : Ms. Laxmeen Kashyap, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. Order on Board 08/01/2026 1. Pursuant to the order dated 15.12.2025, the father of the victim appeared through virtual mode from DLSA, Raipur and raised objection in granting bail to the applicant, their objection is taken on record. 2. This is first bail application before this Court filed by the applicant for grant of regular bail. The applicant has been arrested on 26.06.2025 in connection with Crime No. 720/2024 registered at Police Station Vidhan Sabha, District Raipur (C.G.) for the offence under Sections 137(2), 87, 65(1) of BNS & Section 4 & 6 of POCSO Act, 2012. 3. The case of the prosecution is that on 25.11.2024, the father of the victim lodged a missing report that his minor daughter is missing since 23.11.2024 and her whereabouts could not be traced out. The police has registered the offence under Section 137(2) of the B.N.S, 2023, and started investigation. ALOK SHARMA Digitally signed by ALOK SHARMA Date: 2026.01.08 17:32:00 +0530 2 During the investigation the victim was recovered on 25.06.2025 from the possession of the applicant and after recording her statement the other offence of Section 87, 65(1) of BNS and Section 4 & 6 of POCSO Act have been added. The applicant has been arrested on 26.06.2025 and charge- sheet has been filed. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that there is no legally admissible evidence with respect to the age of the victim that she was minor on the date of incident. She was in love affair with the applicant and she herself on her own will eloped with him and started residing with him. She consensually made physical relation with the applicant and it is only under the pressure of her parents she made statement against the applicant. The applicant is in jail since 26.06.2025, and final adjudication of the case will take its own time, therefore, he may be enlarged on bail. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes and submitted that there is sufficient evidence with respect to the age of the victim that she is 13 years 7 months of age on the date of incident and from her statement also it clearly evident that she was sexually exploited by the applicant, therefore, he is not entitled for bail. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the bail application. 7. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, considering the nature of allegation, further considering the age of the victim and the evidence available in the charge-sheet with respect to her age and further her 183 BNSS, statement, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail. His bail application is, therefore, rejected. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Alok