1 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 4463 of 2026 Manish Bhatt S/o Late Fagulal Bhat Aged About 19 Years R/o Kosampali P.S. Kotraroad District- Raigarh (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Kotraroad Raigarh District- Raigarh (C.G.) ... Respondent For the applicant : Mr. Krishna Tandon, Advocate For the State : Ms. Deepeshwari Mahilwar, Panel Lawyer. (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Order on Board 01.07.2026 1. The victim has appeared through VC from the concerned DLSA and objected to grant bail. 2. 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.434/2025 registered at Police Station Kotraroad, District Raigarh (C.G) for the offences under Sections 363, 366, 376(n) and 376(2) of IPC and Section 5(l) punishable under section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012. 3. The first bail application was rejected by order dated 12.01.2026 passed in MCRC No. 10344 of 2026. ALLENA ANNAJEE RAO Digitally signed by ALLENA ANNAJEE RAO Date: 2026.07.02 10:19:26 +0530 2 4. As per the prosecution case, on 25.10.2025 the victim lodged a written report to the effect that the applicant had initially committed sexual intercourse with her on 26.09.2022 and prior to the incident, he established physical relations on the pretext of marriage. Again on 09.08.2025, he repeated the wrongful act with her. When their love affairs came to the knowledge of their families, the mother of appellant agreed to solemnise their marriage after the victim becomes major and further his mother gave an undertaking on stamp paper to that effect. However, the applicant has refused to marry her and further threatened her. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the appellant is two years younger than the victim and there was consensual relations between them, therefore, she was consenting party. He submits that on the date of first incident i.e., 20.09.2022, the victim was aged about 17 years and the applicant was juvenile. He next submits that there was an inordinate delay of 3 years in lodging the report as the incident is said to have taken place way back on 20.09.2022 whereas the FIR has been filed much after on 21.10.2025. He also submits that after rejection of the first bail application, the victim has been examined and she has admitted in her court statement at para 46 that an agreement was made on 11.10.2022 by the mother of accused on a stamp paper in presence of police that when the victim becomes major then she will get her son married to the victim. He submits that the applicant is in jail since 30.10.2025; till date out of 14 witnesses, only 4 have been examined and there is no likelihood of trial being concluded at the earliest, therefore, the applicant deserves to be released on bail at this stage. 6. Per contra, learned State Counsel opposing the bail application submits that at the time of incident, the victim was minor and in her court statement she has supported the prosecution case. 3 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the material on record. 8. Having considered the fact that the applicant is two years younger than the victim and the delay of 3 years in lodging the report as also the admission made by the victim in her court statement that an agreement was made on 11.10.2022 whereby the mother of applicant has agreed to solemnize the marriage of her son after the victim becomes major and further looking to the long custody of the applicant and the trial is yet to take time, without observing anything on merits of the case, I am inclined to release the applicant on regular bail. 9. Accordingly, this 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