1 2026:CGHC:4669 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 370 of 2026 1 - Rajat S/o Prem Kumar Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Ravidas Mandir Gheed, P.S. Kunjpara, Distt. Karnal (Haryana) ... Applicant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Pathariya, Distt. Mungeli Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Anchal Kumar Matre, Advocate For State/Respondent : Mr. Aman Tamboli, P.L. (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Order on Board 28/01/2026 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.293/2024 registered at Police Station Pathariya, District Mungeli (CG) for the offences under Sections 137(2), 87, 64(1), 64(2)(D) of BNS and Sections 4, 6 of the POCSO Act. 2. The prosecution story in brief is that the father of prosecutrix had lodged a missing report on 14.12.2024 stating that his daughter RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Digitally signed by RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Date: 2026.02.02 14:57:05 +0530 2 i.e. the prosecutrix was missing from their house since intervening night of 09.12.2024 at 3:00 AM. An FIR was registered as Crime No. 293/2024 under Section 137(2) of BNS. During investigation, on 01.09.2025, the prosecutrix was recovered and Section 87, 64(1), 64(2)(n) of BNS and Section 4 and 6 of POCSO were added. 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-2 (father of the prosecutrix/complainant) have been examined. The applicant and the prosecutrix were together for a period of 9 months, she is a connecting party and there is no evidence on record to substantiate the fact that she is minor on the date of incident. Presently, out of 21 prosecution witnesses, only 3 witnesses have been examined. Given that the applicant has been in jail since 02.09.2025, 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 father of the victim has appeared in person before this Court and he has raised objection regarding grant of bail to the appellant. 6. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel 3 for the parties, and upon examining the facts and circumstances of the case, the material available on record, including the Court statements of the witnessess coupled with the fact that out of 21 witnesses, 3 have been examined till date, and the applicant has been incarcerated since 02.09.2025, and the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude, I find it appropriate to release the applicant on bail at this stage. 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