1 CGHC010262392026 2026:CGHC:31045 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 6289 of 2026 1 - Narsingh Rathia S/o Shri Dileshwar Rathia Aged About 19 Years R/o Village Barbaspur, P.S. Chhal, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Chhal, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Rajendra Patel, Advocate. For State/Respondent : Mr. Rohitashva Singh, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board 21/07/2026 1. This is the Second bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 23/2026 registered at Police Station Chhal, District Raigarh (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 64(2)(m) of BNS and Sections 4 & 6 of POCSO Act. 2. The first bail application of the applicant was dismissed as withdrawn on 08.04.2026 in MCRC No. 2772/2026. 3. As per the prosecution case, an FIR was lodged on 14.02.2026 with the allegation that in June 2025, on the pretext of Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2026.07.21 16:53:47 +0530 2 marriage, the applicant established physical relations with the minor victim on multiple occasions, which resulted in her pregnancy. It is further alleged that thereafter a meeting was convened at the community level, wherein the applicant refused to marry the victim. Consequently, the present report was lodged and the offence has been registered against the applicant. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that after dismissal of the first bail application, 6 witnesses out of 14 listed witnesses, including the victim, her parents and the Headmaster, have already been examined before the Trial Court. It is further submitted that there is no documentary proof regarding the age of the victim. The victim is a consenting party and has admitted in her Court statement that she is not pregnant. There is also no medical evidence to show that she was carrying pregnancy. Learned counsel next submits that there is an inordinate delay in lodging the FIR. The FIR was lodged only after the applicant refused to marry the prosecutrix in a community meeting held for that purpose. The applicant is in custody since 15.02.2026 and the trial is likely to take considerable time for conclusion. On these grounds, it is prayed that the applicant be released on regular bail. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application and submits that the applicant has committed a heinous offence against a minor girl. The prosecutrix has already been examined before the Trial Court and she has 3 supported the prosecution case. Therefore, at this stage, the applicant does not deserve to be enlarged on bail. 6. The victim along with her father appeared through V.C. from the concerned DLSA and raised objection to grant of bail to the applicant. 7. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the statements of the prosecutrix, her parents and the Headmaster, and also considering that the applicant is in custody since 15.02.2026, that only 6 out of 14 listed witnesses have been examined so far, and that the trial is likely to take considerable time for conclusion, I am inclined to release the applicant on bail at this stage. 9. 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. 10. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge H.L. Sahu