1 2026:CGHC:9591 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 1572 of 2026 Ritesh Kumar Khare S/o Ramkumar Khare Aged About 23 Years R/o Village Sarakhon, Ward No. 15, Police Chauki-Naila, Police Station Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh through the Station House Officer, Police Chauki- Naila, Police Station Janjgir, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ... Respondent For the applicant : Mr. Paras Mani Shriwas, Advocate For the State : Mr. Akash Agrawal, Panel Lawyer (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Order on Board 24.02.2026 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. 609/2025 registered at Police Station Janjgir through Police Chauki Naila, District Janjgir Champa (C.G) (CG) for the offences under Sections 137(2), 64(2)(m), 87 of Bhartiya ALLENA ANNAJEE RAO Digitally signed by ALLENA ANNAJEE RAO Date: 2026.02.24 16:33:42 +0530 2 Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 4 & 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. 2. The prosecution story in brief is that on 02.07.2025, the father of victim girl had lodged the missing report stating that his daughter is missing since 26.06.2025, on which, crime was registered. The allegation against the applicant is that he had taken away the girl on 26.6.2025 with an intent to coerce and seduce victim into illicit sexual intercourse and committed sexual assaults on her on various occasions from 27.06.2025 to 27.11.2025 without her consent or will. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the victim and her father have been examined before the trial Court and they have not supported the case of prosecution. He submits that from their court statements, it is clear that the victim is major lady and she left her parents’ house on her own will and later she herself came back to her parents house and further she was not recovered from the possession of the applicant, therefore, no offence is made out against the applicant. He further submits that there was much delay in filing the FIR and no plausible explanation was given for such delay. He submits that the applicant is in jail since 27.11.2025; till date out of a total 19 witnesses, only 2 i.e., the victim and her father have been examined 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 at the time of incident, the victim was minor. 3 5. The victim along with her father has appeared through VC from the concerned DLSA and expressed no-objection to grant bail to the applicant. 6. Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and the over-all facts and circumstances of the case and further looking to the court statements of the victim and her father, without observing anything on the merits of the case, I am inclined to allow this bail application. 7. Accordingly, this bail application is allowed and the applicant is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing a personal 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