1 2026:CGHC:8420 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 1050 of 2026 Gujraj Dahire S/o Rambahorik Aged About 20 Years R/o Village Padampur P.S. Jarhagaon, District - Mungeli (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station - Pathariya District - Mungeli (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Ashish Tiwari, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Monika and Mr. Sumit Singh, Dy. A.G. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board 17.02.2026 1. This is the second 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. 75/2025 registered at Police Station- Pathariya District - Mungeli (C.G.), for the offence MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2026.02.17 17:52:37 +0530 2 punishable under Sections 137(2), 87, 64(2)(m), 65(1), 3(5) of BNS, 2023 and Sections 5(1) & 6 of POCSO Act. 2. The first bail application of the applicant was dismissed on merit on 06.08.2025 in MCRC No. 5527/2025. 3. As per the prosecution's case, it is alleged against the applicant that on 11.04.2025, the applicant took the minor victim along with him to various places and committed sexual intercourse with the minor victim. It is also alleged that on 24.04.2025, the victim was recovered from the possession of the applicant. Based on this, offence has been registered against the present applicant. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case and that there are material contradictions in the statement of the victim. It is further submitted that from the victim’s own statement it appears that she was freely and voluntarily moving with the applicant at various public places open to a large number of people and, had there been any force, coercion or manipulation, she would have raised an alarm. He also submits that the FSL and MLC are both negative. Learned counsel further submits that the applicant is in custody since 25.04.2025, the charge-sheet has been filed and there are 27 prosecution witnesses, out of whom only 07 have been examined so far, as such, the 3 trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude. Hence, it is prayed that the applicant be released on bail. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application and submits that the applicant committed a heinous offence with a minor girl and the victim was recovered from the possession of the applicant on 24.04.2025. Therefore, he may not be enlarged on bail. 6. The victim and her parents appeared through V.C. from the concerned DLSA and raised objection to grant of bail to the applicant. 7. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the statement of the victim, the negative FSL and MLC reports and the fact that applicant is in judicial custody since 25.04.2025 and the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude, therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is inclined to allow the application of the applicant. 9. Accordingly, the application is allowed and it is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court. The applicant is directed to appear before the trial 4 Court on each and every date to be given to him by the said Court till disposal of the trial. It is made clear that any observation made by this Court in this order shall not affect the trial of the case. 10. 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 Manpreet