1 2025:CGHC:57277 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 9039 of 2025 1 - Hridaylal @ Nanu Yadav S/o Shri Tilakram Yadav Aged About 26 Years R/o Balodi P.S. Palari Distt. Balodabazar-Bhatapara C.G. ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Bemetara, Distt. Bemetara C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Ms. Laxmi Gupta,Advocate on behalf of Shri Pragalbha Sharma, Advocate For Respondent/State : Shri Vivek Sharma, PL (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board 25/11/2025 The applicant has filed this bail application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrrik Suraksha Sanhita for grant of regular bail as he is in custody in connection with Crime No. 437/2024 registered at police SUGUNA DUBEY Digitally signed by SUGUNA DUBEY Date: 2025.11.28 11:09:37 +0530 2 station Bemetara, District Bemetara (CG) for the offence punishable under Sections 137(2), 87,64 (1), 64(2)(m) and 65 (1) of BNS and Sections 4 & 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. 2. It is alleged that the applicant took the prosecutrix from her lawful guardianship and thereafter married her. Further it is alleged that he committed repeated sexual intercourse with the minor. FIR was lodged by the parents of the victim and the applicant was arrested on 31.05.2025. 3. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. He submits that the applicant and the prosecutrix were having love affair and were in a consensual relationship and the prosecutrix voluntarily accompanied the applicant. It is further submitted that there is no sufficient legal evidence to conclusively prove the age of the prosecutrix and that the medical evidence does not support the allegation of forcible sexual intercourse. It is contended that the applicant is a young man aged about 26years and has no previous criminal antecedents,he is in custody since 31.05.2025, the charge sheet has been filed and the trial is likely to take some time, he is ready and willing to comply with any of the conditions which may be imposed upon him and thus, it is submitted that the application be allowed and the applicant be released on bail. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent/State, on the other hand, has opposed the bail application and submits that the offences alleged are 3 serious in nature and relate to sexual assault against a minor, hence the application deserves to be rejected. 5. Victim and her father are present in the court and they have raised objection for grant of bail. 6. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. On due consideration of the rival submissions and prima facie it appears from the statement of the prosecutrix indicates that she had accompanied the applicant voluntarily and the medical report does not show any evidence of recent forcible sexual intercourse. The applicant has remained in custody since 31.05.2025, the charge sheet has already been filed, and looking to the fact that the final disposal of the trial is likely to take sufficiently long time, the present application deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, his bail application is allowed. 8. It is directed that in the event of applicant executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety to the satisfaction of the concerned trial court, he shall be released on bail on the following conditions: i) He/she shall appear before the trial court regularly on each and every date, unless exempted from appearance. ii) He/she shall not make any attempt to tamper with the prosecution witnesses. Iii) the applicant is directed not to communicate/contact in any manner with the prosecutrix, her family members and the witnesses 4 cited in the charge sheet any other person concerned or attempt to ask for any favour in the trial directly or indirectly. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge