1 2026:CGHC:13718 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 2350 of 2026 Tirat Yadav @ Tirath S/o Sunder Lal Yadav Aged About 20 Years R/o Village- Churteli , Police Station- Dabhra, District - Sakti Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus State of Chhattisgarh through Station House Officer, Police Station Dabhra, District- Sakti (C.G.) ... Respondent For the applicant : Mr. Kanhaiya Ram Yadav, Advocate For the State : Mr. Amit Verma, Panel Lawyer (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Order on Board 23.03.2026 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. 404/2025 registered at Police Station Dabhra, District Sakti (CG) for the offences under Sections 333, 74 of BNS as per FIR (Charges were framed u/s 331(3), 74, 75(2) of BNS) and Section 7 of the PocSO Act, 2012 and Section 3(2)(va of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 2 2. As per the prosecution case, on 27.11.2025 the victim lodged report alleging that on 26.11.2025 when she was alone in her house, the applicant entered her house and knowing the fact that she belonged to scheduled tribe category, caught hold of her, threw her on the ground and outraged her modesty. When she raised alarm, the applicant fled from scene. Thereafter, she narrated the incident to her parents and other relatives. On such report, crime was registered and subsequently he was arrested. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that no incident was caused by the applicant and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He submits that the prosecutrix did not disclose the incident to anyone and she had gone to school and there also she did not reveal to anyone, which creates doubt on the delayed FIR. He submits that there are total 12 witnesses; applicant is in jail since 27.12.2025 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 victim was minor aged about 16 years at the time of incident and she has been examined before the trial Court where she has supported the prosecution case. 5. The victim was not connected through VC from the concerned DLSA despite service of notice. 6. Though the victim and her mother have been stated to be examined before the trial Court, copies of their court statements have not been filed. 7. Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and the over all facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to release the applicant on regular bail. Accordingly, his bail application is rejected. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Rao