1 2026:CGHC:8339 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 875 of 2026 Dinanath Singh Paikra S/o Ramsewak Paikra Aged About 32 Years R/o Jarhadih, Police Station- Udaipur, District- Surguja, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh through the Station House Officer, Police Station Udaipur, District- Surguja, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For the applicant : Ms. Seema Verma, Advocate For the State : Ms. Priya Sharma, Panel Lawyer (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Order on Board 16.02.2026 1. This is first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant in Crime No. 180/2025 registered at Police Station Udaipur, District Surguja (CG) for the offences under Sections 64(2)(s) of BNS 2023 and section 4, 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. 2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that the victim has lodged the report stating that from 8.12.2014 to year 2025, the applicant had ALLENA ANNAJEE RAO Digitally signed by ALLENA ANNAJEE RAO Date: 2026.02.19 18:14:48 +0530 2 several times committed sexual intercourse with her on the pretext of marriage and when she insisted for marriage, the applicant refused to marry and threatened her to make her photos viral. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the prosecutrix is a major and married lady having children and the ingredients of POCSO Act would not attract in this case. She further submits that the alleged incident is said to have been taking place since 2014 whereas the FIR has been filed in the year 2025, therefore, there is inordinate delay of 11 years in lodging the FIR and the reasons for such long delay have not been explained. She submits that even the result of DNA test proved negative, therefore, the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. She eventually submits that the applicant is in jail since 11.12.2025; charges have not been framed till date and there is no immediate possibility of disposal of case, therefore, the applicant may be enlarged on bail. 4. Per contra, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the trial has not commenced and the victim has not been examined, therefore, the applicant may not be released on bail, at this stage. 5. The victim has appeared through VC from the concerned DLSA and expressed no objection to grant bail. 6. Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and the fact that the trial has not yet commenced, I am not inclined to release the applicant on regular bail at this stage. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Rao 3