1 2025:CGHC:44416 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 6546 of 2025 Sadaram Sahu S/o Baratu Ram Sahu Aged About 35 Years R/o Bharsela New P.S. Balodabazar, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus State of Chhattisgarh through the Police Station Mahasamund, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For the applicant : Mr. Tanuj Patwardhan, Advocate For the State : Mr. H.A.P.S. Bhatia, Panel Lawyer (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Order on Board 01.09.2025 1. This is second bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant in Crime No. 179/2025 registered at Police Station Mahasamund, District Mahasamund (CG) for the offences under Sections 74, 75(2) of the BNS, 2023 and section 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and section 3(1)(w), 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 2. The first bail application was dismissed as withdrawn by order dated 16.06.2025 passed in M.Cr.C.No.4190/2025. 3. The prosecution story in brief is that on 25.04.2025 the victim who belongs to special caste lodged the report in P.S. Mahasamund alleging that the accused with an intention to outrage the modesty of the victim 2 caught hold of her and kissed her on cheeks and asked her to satisfy his sexual desires by using obscene words. On such report, the offence was registered against the applicant. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the victim has stated her age to be 19 years in her written report and there was a money dispute between the two parties. He further submits that although the prosecutrix is stated to be minor aged about 17 years and 6 months, yet the evidence of correct age has not been proved. He submits that the trial has not commenced and the applicant is in jail since 26.04.2025 and there is no immediate possibility of disposal of case, therefore, he may be enlarged on bail. 5. Per contra, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application and submits that at the time of incident, the prosecutrix was minor and in her statements under sections 161 & 164 she has supported the case of prosecution. The victim has raised objection before the trial Court regarding grant of bail. 6. Office note shows that the notice issued to the victim/ complainant/informant has not yet been served. 7. Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and the fact that the trial has not yet commenced, I am not inclined to release the applicant on regular bail at this stage. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Rao