1 2026:CGHC:5693 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 634 of 2026 1 - Manoj Yadav S/o Premnarayan Yadav Aged About 20 Years R/o Village Parsapali Khurd, Police Station - Dhurki, District - Garhwa ( Jharkhand) ... Applicant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station - Sanawal, District - Balrampur - Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Basant Kaiwartya, Advocate For State/Respondent : Ms. Avelin Juneja, P.L. (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Order on Board 02/02/2026 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.23/2025 registered at Police Station Sanawal, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj (CG) for the offences RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Digitally signed by RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Date: 2026.02.03 21:02:16 +0530 2 under Sections 64(2)(d) of IPC and Sections 4, 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012. 2. The prosecution story in brief is that on December 18, 2024, while she was going to school from her home, the appellant made obscene remarks to her, forcibly grabbed her hand, and while she was returning from school, took her to a forest and had sexual intercourse with her. Thereafter, he continued to have sexual intercourse with her under threat. During this time, a villager caught them in the forest, whereupon the applicant stated that he would marry her, but later he refused to marry the victim. Therefore, the offense was registered, and the present accused was arrested on 27.04.2025. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that no offense has been committed by the applicant as projected by the prosecution, and he has been falsely implicated in this case. During the trial, PW-1 (victim) and PW-3 (father of the victim) have been examined. In her statement PW-1 (victim) herself stated that her parents have finalized her marriage with the applicant and they have also printed the wedding card. Thereafter, in the meeting held in the village Panchayat with her family members and the family members of the applicant, permission for their marriage was given, thereby, both of them proceeded to seek permission in this regard from the Women and Child Development Department, upon which she has been advised that after attaining majority only she be able to marry with the applicant. In the meantime, when 3 she came to know that the applicant refused to marry her, she became angry and lodged the said report against the applicant. Further, PW-3 (father of the victim) has stated that the applicant did not commit any crime against her daughter/victim. As the date of incident is reported to be 18.12.2024 and the FIR was registered on 26.04.2025 with delay of more than 4 months only to marry with the applicant on attaining maturity, it is bad in the eyes of law. Presently, out of 11 prosecution witnesses, only 3 witnesses have been examined. Given that the applicant has been in jail since 27.04.2025, and there is no immediate possibility of disposal of trial, therefore, he may be enlarged on bail. 4. Per contra, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application and submits that at the time of incident, the girl was minor and some important witnesses remained to be examined. 5. The victim along with her father appeared through VC from the concerned DLSA and both of them have raised no objection to grant bail to the applicant. 6. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, and upon examining the facts and circumstances of the case, the material available on record, including the Court statements of the witnesses coupled with the fact that out of 11 witnesses, 3 have been examined till date, and the applicant has been incarcerated since 27.04.2025, and the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude, I find it appropriate to release the applicant on bail at this stage. 4 7. Accordingly, the application is allowed and it is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court. Applicant is directed to appear before the trial Court on each and every date to be given to him by the said Court till disposal of the trial. It is made clear that any observation made by this Court in this order shall not affect the trial of the case. 8. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Ravi Mandavi