1 2026:CGHC:14525 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 1702 of 2026 Hannu Sahu S/o Late Moti Lal Sahu, aged about 22 years, R/o Vicharpur Navagaon, Out Post Tumdibod, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Present Address - Villge Uraidabri Out Post Chichola District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Applicant Versus State of Chhattisgarh, through - Station House Officer, Out Post Tumdibod, Police Station Lalbagh District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Respondent (Cause title is taken from Case Information System Software.) For Applicant : Mr. Aditya Bharadwaj, Advocate. For State/Respondent : Mr. Afroz Khan, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board 27.03.2026 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 16/2025 registered at Police Station – Out Post Tumdibod, Police Station Lalbagh District-Rajnandgaon (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 64(2) (M), 65(1), 351(3) of the BNS, 2023 and Section 5 (l), 6 of POCSO Act. Digitally signed by RAVVA UTTEJ KUMAR RAJU 2 2. The prosecution’s case, in short, is that between 02.06.2021 and 12.01.2025, the applicant—who is the biological maternal uncle of the prosecutrix—allegedly subjected her to repeated acts of forcible penetrative sexual assault and threatened to kill both the victim and her parents. It is stated that the accused had been raised by the victim’s parents since childhood. At the time of the alleged incidents, the victim’s parents were working as labourers in Hyderabad, while the accused, his elder brother, and the victim’s grandparents were residing in the same house. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case with no connection to the alleged offence. He further contends that the prosecutrix has not corroborated the prosecution’s case, as during her examination-in-chief she clearly stated that disputes frequently arose between her parents and the applicant. These disputes arose from the applicant being unemployed, residing in their house, and refusing to vacate the premises. He next submits that the victim has been examined and she has not stated anything against the applicant. The applicant has no criminal antecedents and has been in jail since 13.01.2025 and the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude, therefore, the present applicant may be released on bail. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposed the bail application, submitting that at the time of the incident, the victim was a minor. Out of a total of 21 witnesses, only 05 have been examined till date, therefore, at this stage, the applicant should not be released on bail. 3 5. Despite service of notice, the victim has not appeared before this Court today. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the offence, and on perusal of the court statement of the victim, and also taking into account that the applicant has been in jail since 13.01.2025, out of 21 witnesses, only 05 have been examined till date, and the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude, therefore, I find it appropriate to release the applicant on bail. 8. Accordingly, the application is allowed and the applicant is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the said Court as and when directed in that behalf. 9. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge U.K. Raju