1 2026:CGHC:472 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 9988 of 2025 1 - Puneshwar Sahu @ Punnu @ Punesh S/o Chumman Lal Sahu Aged About 19 Years 07 Months, R/o Village Devri Ward No. 10, School Para, Rajim P.S. Rajim, District- Gariyaband (C.G.) ... Applicant versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer Police Station Rajim, District- Gariyaband (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant : Shri C.R. Sahu, Advocate. For State : Ms. Laxmin Kashyap, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J Order on Board 05.01.2026 1. Pursuant to order dated 05.12.2025, the mother and father of victim appeared through virtual mode from the concerned DLSA and raised objection in granting bail to the applicant. The submission is recorded. 2. This is first bail application seeking grant of bail to the Applicant who is in jail since 12.10.2025 in connection with Crime No.201/2025 registered at Police Station Rajim, District Gariyaband, for the offence punishable under Sections 137(2), 87, 96, 81, 64(2)(m) of BNS and Section 4&6 of POCSO Act. 3. As per prosecution case, on 09.07.2025 a missing report was lodged by the father of victim that his minor daughter is missing and her whereabouts could not be traced out. The police registered an offence under Section 137(2) of The BNS and started investigation. During investigation, the victim was recovered on 12.10.2025 from of the 2 possession of applicant. The police recorded her statement and thereafter other offences were added. The applicant was arrested and charge sheet was filed. 4. Learned Counsel for the applicant would submit that there is no cogent evidence with respect to age of victim. She is a major girl having love affair with the applicant and she herself eloped with the applicant and engaged in making consensual physical relationship with him and she did not raise any objection during that period. She lodged report under the pressure of her parents. Therefore, the applicant may be released on bail as final adjudication may take sometime. 5. On the other hand the counsel for the State opposes the bail application and have submitted that applicant was already married which is reflected from 183 BNSS statement as well as deposition of the victim who has been examined as PW-1 before that trial court, despite that he kept the minor victim in his possession and sexually exploited her. Therefore, he is not entitled for bail. 6. Considering the submissions made by the counsel for the parties, the nature of allegation and material collected during investigation, also considering the evidence with respect to age of victim as well as her 183 BNSS statement and deposition, and further considering the fact that applicant was already married person, this Court is of the opinion that present is not a fit case where the Applicant can be enlarged on bail. 7. Accordingly, the application for grant of bail is rejected. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge inder