1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 10343 of 2025 1 - Taufan Singh Pav S/o Murali Pav Aged About 41 Years R/o - Devprasad Alias Nanki Sahu Ka Kiraya Makan Sanjay Nagar Kharsiya, District - Raigarh (C.G.) ... Applicant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station - Kharsiya District - Raigarh (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant : Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Isha Jajodiya, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 12.01.2026 1. This is the Second Bail Application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested on 25/07/2025 in connection with Crime No.408/2025 registered at Police Station – Kharsiya District – Raigarh (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections ARPAN SRIVASTAVA Digitally signed by ARPAN SRIVASTAVA Date: 2026.01.22 12:19:31 +0530 2 65 (2) B.N.S., 3 (2) (v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and 5 (m)/6 of the POCSO Act. 2. The prosecution case is that on 24.07.2025 at about 12:00 noon, the mother of the victim lodged a First Information Report at Police Station Kharsiya, District Raigarh (C.G.), alleging that her daughter, a minor girl aged about five years, had gone to play at the house of their neighbour, namely Toofan Singh. After some time, the child returned home in a disturbed and crying condition. On being questioned by her mother regarding the cause of her distress, the victim took her mother by the hand to the house of the said neighbour and narrated the incident alleged to have been committed against her. The police registered Crime No. 408/2025 for the offence punishable under aforementioned sections. Upon completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was presented before the competent Court for trial. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the mother of the victim lodged a First Information Report (F.I.R.) on 24.07.2025 at about 12:00 noon at Police Station Kharsia, alleging that her daughter, aged about five years, had gone to play at the house of their neighbour, namely Toofan Singh. After some time, the child returned home crying. Upon being questioned by her mother, the victim took her by the hand to the house of Toofan Singh and narrated the incident. Based on the above incident, Crime No. 408/2025 was registered under Section-65(2) IPC and Section-4 of 3 the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. The investigation proceedings were initiated in the case. The charge sheet has been presented in the case. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was arrested on 25.07.2025 by the police of Kharsiya, District Raigarh (C.G.). It is further submitted that the applicant has no criminal antecedents and is a law-abiding citizen. The applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated; the allegations levelled against him are false, baseless, and malicious in nature. Learned counsel further submits that there is no documentary evidence available on record to establish any alleged abortion so as to attract the offences invoked. It is also contended that there is no material on record to demonstrate that the applicant had forcible sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix. On the contrary, the medical report of the prosecutrix does not support the prosecution version, as no signs of injury have been found. It is further submitted that the applicant has no criminal background and that the entire prosecution case is false and concocted. The complaint of the prosecutrix is stated to be an afterthought, filed with the sole intention of falsely implicating the applicant. There is no direct or cogent evidence on record to show that the applicant has committed any offence under the aforesaid provisions. Learned counsel further submits that there is no likelihood of the applicant absconding or tampering with the evidence. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is prayed that this Court may kindly be pleased to grant bail to the applicant. 4 5. Learned State counsel vehemently opposes the bail application and submits that a perusal of the record clearly reveals that the main charge against the applicant/accused pertains to sexual exploitation of a minor girl aged about five years. The material available on record prima facie discloses that the offence has been committed against a child of tender age, attracting the stringent provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. It is further submitted that the statements of the victim’s parents as well as other material and crucial witnesses are yet to be examined, and their testimony is vital for the just adjudication of the case. At this stage, the contention raised by the applicant that he is innocent is a matter of trial and can only be adjudicated upon after appreciation of the evidence led by both sides. Learned State counsel further submits that considering the gravity and seriousness of the allegations, the age of the victim, and the stage of the proceedings, it would not be appropriate to grant bail to the applicant/accused at this juncture. Grant of bail at this stage may adversely affect the prosecution case. In view of the aforesaid submissions, learned State counsel prays that the bail application filed by the applicant/accused be rejected. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary and the material available on record. 7. On careful consideration, it prima facie appears that the allegations against the applicant relate to sexual assault upon a minor child of tender age. The nature of the offence alleged is grave and serious, 5 and the statutory provisions invoked prescribe stringent punishment. At this stage, the defence raised by the applicant regarding absence of medical corroboration and alleged falsity of the complaint involves disputed questions of fact, which can be adjudicated only after appreciation of evidence during trial. 8. The victim is a child aged about five years, and the statements of the victim’s parents and other material witnesses are yet to be recorded. Their examination is crucial for the prosecution case. Grant of bail at this stage may adversely affect the fair conduct of the trial. It is also relevant to note that this is the second bail application and no substantial change in circumstances has been demonstrated since the rejection of the earlier bail application so as to warrant a different view. 9. Considering the gravity of the allegations, the age of the victim, the statutory rigour under the POCSO Act and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, and the stage of the proceedings, this Court is of the considered opinion that the applicant has failed to make out a case for grant of bail. Accordingly, the second bail application filed by the applicant is dismissed. - Sd/- - (Arvind Kumar Verma) Arpan Judge