1 2026:CGHC:6830 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 734 of 2026 1 - Sahdev Kumar Yadav S/o Shri Kheekram Yadav, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Village Pipara, Police Station Navagarh, District Janjgir- Champa C.G. ... Applicant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer Navagarh, District Janjgir-Champa C.G. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Ashutosh Trivedi, Adv. For Respondent/State : Ms. Vithika Choubey, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order On Board 06/02/2026 1. The victim along with her father appeared in person before this Court today and recorded ‘objection’ in granting bail to the applicant. 2. The applicant has preferred this 02nd bail application under Section 483 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita Act 2023 for grant of regular bail as he is arrested in connection with crime No. 136/2025, registered at Police Station – Navagarh, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) for offence punishable under Sections 376(2)(n), 366(A) of the IPC and Sections 4 & 6 of the POCSO Act. SOURABH PATEL Digitally signed by SOURABH PATEL Date: 2026.02.06 17:01:14 +0530 2 3. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected on merits by this Court on 09.07.2025 in MCRC No.4460/2025. 4. The prosecution's case, in short, is that the applicant on the pretext of marriage has continuously exploited the victim sexually starting from 15.02.2023 till lodging the complaint i.e. 18.03.2025. Based on above, offence has been registered against the applicant. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the crime. There was a love affair between the applicant and the victim, and she was a consenting party. It is further submitted that there is a major contradiction regarding the victim's date of birth. The applicant has no criminal antecedents and has been in jail since 19.03.2025. Out of a total of 16 witnesses, only 4 have been examined till date, and the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude, therefore, the applicant may be enlarged on bail. 6. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the bail application and submits that at the time of incident, the victim was minor, therefore, looking to the nature of offence, the applicant may not be released on bail. 7. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. 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 the fact that the applicant has been in jail 3 since 19.03.2025, out of 16 witnesses, only 04 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. 9. 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. 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 Sourabh P.