1 2026:CGHC:19781 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 3223 of 2026 Chandan Manjhi @ Hurda Chandan Manjhi S/o Beersingh Manjhi, aged about 19 years, R/o Village Makarbirli, Police Station Boden, District- Nuapada (Odisha) ... Applicant Versus State of Chhattisgarh, through the Station House Officer, Police Station Devbhog, District- Gariyaband (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Shivendu Pandya, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Siddhant Tiwari, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board 29/04/2026 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. 311/2025 registered at Police Station -Devbhog, District-Gariyaband (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 64(2)(m) & 87 of BNS, 2023 and Sections 4 & 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 and 64(2)(m), 87 Digitally signed by RAVVA UTTEJ KUMAR RAJU 2 of BNS and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012. 2. The first bail application of the applicant was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court on 03.03.2026 in MCRC No. 1810/2026. 3. The prosecution's case, in short, is that the present applicant made sexual relationship with the prosecutrix without her consent on the pretext of marriage. On the said act of the accused/applicant, the prosecutrix lodged the report to the Police Station- Devbhog, District- Gariyaband (C.G.). On such report the FIR was registered against the applicant under Sections 64(2)(m) & 87 of B.N.S. and Section 04, 06 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and he was arrested on 18.11.2025. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. He further submits that the victim voluntarily accompanied the applicant and was a consenting party, therefore, no offence is made out against the applicant. The prosecution has failed to prove the age of the victim. Further, upon examination, the victim herself turned hostile, thereby weakening the case against the applicant. He next submits that the applicant has no previous criminal antecedents and is not likely to tamper with evidence or influence witnesses if released on bail. The applicant has been in jail since 18.11.2025 and till date out of a total 14 witnesses only victim has been examined and there is no immediate possibility of disposal of case, therefore, he may be enlarged on bail. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application and submits that at the time of incident, the victim was minor. 6. The victim herself has appeared through VC from the concerned DLSA 3 and raised objection in granting 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, the nature and gravity of the offence, on perusal of the court statement of the victim and also taking into account the detention period of the applicant i.e., since 18.11.2025 and out of 14 witnesses, only victim has 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 U.K. Raju