1 2026:CGHC:8075 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 871 of 2026 Vinod Kumar Bharti @ Vikki S/o Jageshwar Bharti Aged About 19 Years R/o Ward No. 10 Chati, P.S. Kurud, District Dhamtari C.G. ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, P.S. Kurud, District Dhamtari C.G. ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Prasoon Agrawal, Advocate For Res./State : Ms. Laxmin Kashyap, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order On Board 13/02/2026 1. The victim alongwith her father appeared virtually and recorded ‘objection’ in granting bail to the Applicant. 2. The applicant has preferred this 1st 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. 289 of 2025, registered at Police Station – Kurud, District Dhamtari (C.G.) for offence punishable under Sections 137(2), 87, 65(1) of BNS and Section 4, 6 of 2 the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (in short “POCSO Act, 2012”). 3. The prosecution's case, in short, is that a complaint was lodged by victim’s father that on 19.10.2025, the victim without informing anyone went away from the house and since then she is missing. On 24.10.2025, the victim was recovered from Bangar Gauthan, Kurud, District Dhamtari. It has been further alleged by the prosecution that the applicant has committed forcible sexual intercourse with her on the pretext of marriage. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the crime in question. The victim and the applicant had love relationship. The victim was consenting party and she herself went to him on her own free fill. Further, statement of the victim has been recorded and she turned hostile. The applicant is in jail since 25.10.2025, out of 13 prosecution witnesses, only 1 has been examined till date and the trial is likely to take some more time to be finalized, therefore, it is prayed that the applicant may be enlarged on bail. 5. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the bail application and submits the victim was recovered from the applicant, at the time of incident, the victim was minor, therefore, looking to the nature of offence, the applicant may not be released on bail. 6. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. Considering the case's facts, prosecution evidence, applicant's detention period, statements of victim in which she turned hostile. Further considering that the trial is likely to take some time to be finalized, without commenting on merits of the case, I am inclined to release the applicant on bail. 8. Accordingly, the bail application is Allowed. 9. It is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail on executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 20,000/- with one solvent surety for the 3 like sum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for his appearance before the said Court as and when directed. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Ami AMITA DUBEY Digitally signed by AMITA DUBEY Date: 2026.02.16 12:56:39 +0530