1 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 568 of 2026 Vijay Kumar, S/o Heerachand Aged About 32 Years R/o Vill. Narola (Schoolpara), Police Outpost Rewati, Police Station Chandoura, District Surajpur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh through Station House Officer, Police Station Basantpur, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) ... Respondent For the applicant : Mr. Arun Kumar Shukla, Advocate For the State : Mr. Karan Kumar Bahrani, Panel Lawyer (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Order on Board 29.01.2026 1. This is second bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant in Crime No. 40/2025 registered at Police Station Basantpur, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj (CG) for the offences under Sections 137(2), 64(2)(M), 65(1), 87 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita & Section 4(2), 5(1)/6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. ALLENA ANNAJEE RAO Digitally signed by ALLENA ANNAJEE RAO Date: 2026.01.29 18:00:57 +0530 2 2. The first bail application has been rejected by order dated 28.07.2025 passed in M.Cr.C.no.5475 of 2025. 3. The prosecution story, in brief, is that the applicant knowing fully well that the victim was minor, kidnapped her from the lawful custody of her parents and committed forcible sexual intercourse with her on the pretext of marriage. On report being made, the applicant was arrested on 15.03.2025. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the victim has been examined before the trial Court wherein she has categorically stated that she had voluntarily accompanied the applicant and she has not clearly supported the case of prosecution. He further submits that the victim in her 183 CrPC statement has also not stated anything against the applicant, therefore, she was a consenting party. He next submits that though the victim is said to be minor, yet the evidence of correct age has not been proved. He further submits that out of a total 16 witnesses, only 5 have been examined till date and there are changing circumstances after rejecting the first bail application; the applicant is in jail since 15.03.2025 and there is no immediate possibility of the case being disposed of, therefore, considering all these facts, the applicant may be released on bail. 5. Per contra, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application and submits that at the time of incident, the victim was minor; she was recovered from the place of the applicant and he is named in the FIR. 6. The victim alongwith her mother has appeared through VC from the concerned DLSA and objected to bail. 3 7. Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and further looking to the court statement of the victim as also the fact that there are changing circumstances after rejecting the first bail application in this case and there is likelihood of time taking in disposal of trial, without observing anything on the merits of the case, I am inclined to release the applicant on regular bail at this stage. 8. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed and the applicant is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing a bond in sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the said Court as and when directed in that behalf. Cc as per rules. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Rao 4