1 2025:CGHC:57275 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 9158 of 2025 1 - Manioj Kumar Sahu S/o Santosh Kumar Sahu Aged About 20 Years R/o Lachchhanpur, Police Station Janjgir, District - Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, P.S. Janjgir, District - Janjgir Champa (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Shri Rohan Sharma, Advocate For Respondent/State : Ms. Nupur Trivedi, 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. 132/2025 registered at police station Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa (CG) for the offence punishable SUGUNA DUBEY Digitally signed by SUGUNA DUBEY Date: 2025.11.28 11:09:36 +0530 2 under Sections 137(2), 64(2)(m) and 65(1) of the BNS and Sections 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. 2. The prosecution alleges that the complaint was lodged by father of the prosecutrix alleging that the applicant committed sexual assault on the prosecutrix who is stated to be below 16 years of age which led to registration of the above crime. On the basis of the above complaint the applicant was arrested on 12.07.2025. 3. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated and that the age of the proseuctrix has not been conclusively proved. The only document relied upon by the prosecution as age proof is a dakhil kharij register which is disputed. Further the prosecutrix and her father have not supported the prosecution case before the trial court. It is submitted that the prosecutrix is consensual and the prosecurtrix is consensual involving a love affair. No forceful physical relation has been medically established against the applicant. Lastly, the applicant has o criminal antecedents and has been in judicial custody since 12.07.2025, 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. 5. Victim and her father are present before this Court and they have no objection in granting bail to the applicant. 3 6. Having heard counsel for the parties and perused the case diary, this Court notes that the prosecution case largely rests on disputed facts about the age of the prosecutrix and alleged consent. The medical evidence does not conclusively establish force or assault. The charge sheet has been filed and the applicant has no prior criminal record and therefore, the applicant is entitled to the benefit of jail. Accordingly, his bail application is allowed. 7. 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 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