1 CGHC010174512026 2026:CGHC:27955 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.Cr.C No.4030 of 2026 Uddhav Das Mahant, S/o Shri Dhanau Das Mahant, Aged About 21 Years, R/o Tandipar, Ward No.- 06, Police Station Kedar, District - Sanrangarh -Bilaigarh (C.G.) At Present R/o Banjanpali Police Station Jutemill, District Raigarh (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station -Women Police Station And District -Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Non-applicant For Applicant :Shri Abhishek Saraf, Advocate. Non-Applicant/State :Shri Afroj Khan, PL. Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Order on Board 07.07.2026 1. This is the 1st bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the Applicant, who has been arrested in connection with Crime SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Digitally signed by SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Date: 2026.07.08 11:15:28 +0530 2 No.18/2026 registered at Police Station – Women Police Station, District Raigarh for the offence under Sections 64 and 351(3) of BNS 2023 as also under Section 4 of POCSO Act. 2. According to the case of the prosecution, on 15.03.2026, the victim lodged a written complaint at Women Police Station, Raigarh, alleging that she, aged about 17 years, had become acquainted with the Applicant and he has committed forcible sexual intercourse with her after extending threats. It is alleged that on 11.03.2026, the Applicant threatened the victim and obtained Rs.10,000/- from her. Based on the above allegations, the aforesaid offences have been registered against the present Applicant. Hence, this application. 3. Learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that the Applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that there are contradictory versions in the prosecution case with regard to the age of the victim. It is lastly submitted that the Applicant has been in judicial custody since 16.03.2026 and, as the trial is likely to take considerable time for its conclusion, he deserves to be enlarged on bail. 4. Per contra, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application and submits that as per the medical evidence, the victim was below 18 years of age at the relevant time, therefore, the Applicant is not entitled to be released on bail. 3 5. The victim, along with her father, appeared through Video Conferencing from the concerned DLSA and raised objection with respect to grant of bail to the Applicant. 6. Having considered the submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties and the facts and circumstances of the case, further considering the nature and gravity of offence and the material available in the case dairy, without further commenting anything on the merits of the case, I am not inclined to release the Applicant on regular bail. 7. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected. Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Priya