1 2026:CGHC:23908 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 4473 of 2026 1 - Lakki @ Khovendra Mani Nagesh S/o Shi Kumarmani Nagesh Aged About 25 Years R/o Amlipadar P/s Amlipadar District.Gariyabandh C.G. ... Applicant (s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through P/s Amlipadar District Gariyabandh C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Ajay Kumar Mishra, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr.Ghanshyam Kumar Kashyap, Dy.GA (Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Order on Board 15/06/2026 This is the third bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, preferred by the applicant seeking grant of regular bail. The first bail application preferred by the applicant was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 18.09.2025 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 6575/2025, with liberty to renew the same after examination of the material witnesses. Thereafter, the 2 second bail application also came to be dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 06.02.2026 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 1353/2026, with liberty to revive the same after examination of the parents of the victim. 2. The applicant is in judicial custody since 27.05.2025 in connection with Crime No. 50/2025, registered at Police Station Amlipadar, District Gariyaband, for the offences punishable under Section 64(2)(m) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. By way of the present application, the applicant seeks to be enlarged on regular bail. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 25.05.2025, the victim lodged a report at Police Station Amlipadar alleging therein that she was aged about 16 years and 03 months at the time of the alleged incident. It has been alleged that the applicant, under the guise of love and on the false promise of marriage, induced the victim to accompany him to his house and committed forcible sexual intercourse with her on two occasions ie. during the months of February and April, 2025. It is further alleged that, thereafter, the applicant refused to marry with the victim. On the basis of the aforesaid report, the present crime was registered against the applicant. Upon completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been filed, charges have been framed and the trial is presently in progress. It is also borne out from the record that, out of the total 17 prosecution witnesses, 09 witnesses have been examined till 29.04.2026. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the parents of the victim have already been examined as PW-5 and PW-7 3 on 28.04.2026, whereas the victim herself had been examined earlier as PW-1 on 15.07.2025. It is further submitted that the prosecution evidence is replete with material contradictions and inconsistencies, which substantially weakens the prosecution case. With regard to the age of the victim, learned counsel for the applicant contends that the prosecution seeks to establish the same on the basis of the Class-X mark sheet derived from entries made in the school admission register, the authenticity and evidentiary value whereof are yet to be proved in accordance with law. It is also argued that the testimony of the Headmaster (PW-2) suffers from material discrepancies on the aspect of proof of age. 5. Learned counsel further submits that the Medical Board, upon conducting ossification examination, has opined the age of the victim to be between 16 and 18 years. It is additionally contended that the victim had voluntarily accompanied the applicant of her own volition and that the relationship between them was consensual in nature. Further, the delay in lodging the FIR, inasmuch as the alleged incidents pertain to the months of February and April, 2025, whereas the report was lodged only in May, 2025, without any plausible explanation for the delay. 6. Lastly, it is argued that the applicant has remained incarcerated since 27.05.2025 and, despite prolonged custody, only 09 out of 17 prosecution witnesses have been examined till 29.04.2026. It is, therefore, submitted that continued detention of the applicant would amount to pre-trial punishment and that the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail. 7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the 4 the submissions and submits that the trial is progressing expeditiously and there is no likelihood of undue delay in its conclusion. It is contended that the earlier two bail applications were withdrawn by the applicant and that there has been no substantial change in circumstances warranting reconsideration of the prayer for bail. It is further submitted that, having regard to the seriousness of the allegations and that the trial is in progress, no indulgence is called for in favour of the applicant. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have perused the case diary as well as the material available on record. 9. Having bestowed my anxious consideration to the rival submissions advanced by the counsel for the parties, the nature of the allegations levelled against the applicant, the material collected during investigation, the documentary evidence available on record, the depositions of the witnesses examined during trial and further taking note of the fact that the trial is in progress and 09 out of 17 prosecution witnesses have already been examined till 29.04.2026, this Court is of the considered opinion that, at this stage, no case for grant of bail is made out in favour of the applicant. 12. Accordingly, the present bail application, being devoid of merit, deserves to be and is hereby rejected. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge SUGUNA DUBEY Digitally signed by SUGUNA DUBEY Date: 2026.06.22 16:57:12 +0530