1 2026:CGHC:9124 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 1097 of 2026 1 - Ravi Kashyap S/o Sahetaru Aged About 27 Years R/o Sakin Firgi Para Ward No. 04, Village- Kota, Police Station- Kota, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station - Pathariya, District- Mungeli (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pranjal Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Monika Day, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board 20.02.2026 1. The accused/applicant has moved this first bail application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023, for releasing him on regular bail during trial in connection with Crime No. 187/2024 registered at Police Station – Pathariya, District – Mungeli (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 137 (2), 87, 65 (1) of the BNS, 2023 and Sections 4 & 6 of the POCSO, 2012. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the date of the alleged incident is 07.08.2024, on which date the father of the prosecutrix lodged a missing report. The prosecutrix was subsequently recovered on 28.11.2024, and the applicant was arrested on the ABHIGYA SAXENA Digitally signed by ABHIGYA SAXENA 2 same day and has remained in judicial custody ever since. The investigation has already been completed and the charge-sheet has been filed; therefore, no further custodial interrogation of the applicant is required in the present case. 3. No representation was made on behalf of the victim/complainant to object the bail application despite issuance of notice vide order dated 02.02.2026. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. He further submits that there is no direct and cogent evidence to connect the applicant with the alleged crime. The applicant has no criminal antecedents and has been in jail since 28.11.2024. He further submits that the victim was a consenting party and that her alleged date of birth is 14.09.2009, making her approximately 14– 15 years of age at the relevant time; however, the said date of birth has not been duly proved in accordance with law. The applicant is ready to furnish adequate security and shall abide by all the conditions and directions that may be imposed by this Court while granting bail. Therefore, the applicant may be released on bail. 5. On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposed the bail application, submitting that 20 witnesses has to be examined out of which 12 has already been examined by the trial Court. It is further contended that the victim was a minor at the time of the 3 incident and considering the nature and gravity of offence, the applicant should not be released on bail. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, particularly looking to the nature and gravity of offence and the material available on record against the applicant, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail. 8. Accordingly, the bail application filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 is rejected. 9. However, considering the fact that the applicant is in jail since 28.11.2024. It is an exceptional case, therefore, concerned trial Court is directed to expedite the preferably within a period of three months. 10. Office is directed to sent a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Saxena