1 CGHC010271152026 2026:CGHC:34296 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 6568 of 2026 • Hemant Verma S/o Uttara Kumar Verma Aged About 19 Years R/o Village Kamta, P.S. - Navagarh, Distt - Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant(s) versus • State Of Chhattisgarh Through - P.S. Patharia, District - Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Devesh Chandra Verma, Advocate For State : Mr. Amit Verma, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Order On Board 05.08.2026 1. This is the second bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Shuraksha Sanhita for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested on 05.08.2025 in connection with Crime No. 158/2025, registered at Police Station Pathariya, District Mungeli, C.G. for the offence punishable under Sections 137 (2), 65(1), 3(5) of the B.N.S. and Sections 4 & 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. MANISH YADAV Digitally signed by MANISH YADAV Date: 2026.08.05 19:22:18 +0530 2 2. First bail application filed by the applicant bearing MCRC No. 9508 of 2025 has been rejected by this Court vide order dated 08.12.2025 on merit. 3. In pursuance of direction given by this Court, victim’s father has appeared before this Court through concerned DLSA and has raised objection in releasing the applicant on bail. His objection is taken on record. 4. The case of the prosecution in brief is that a missing report report was lodged by the father of the prosecutrix on 03.08.2025 that his daughter has left the house without informing anyone. Thereafter, on the basis of the missing report FIR was registered against the unknown person and during investigation the prosecutrix was recovered and on being enquired from her she stated that the applicant took her on the motorcycle of his friend to Navagarh and from there he took her to Raipur and committed sexual intercourse with her. Thereafter, the present applicant was arrested. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the prosecutrix is a consenting party and there is love relation between the applicant and the prosecutrix. He would next contend that the applicant is only 18 years old and the detention would affect his mental status as well career. He would lastly contend that the applicant is in jail since 05.08.2025, therefore, he may be enlarged on bail. 6. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bail. 7. Father of the prosecutrix appeared in person before the Court and he objected for grant of bail to the applicant. 3 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents 9. Perusal of the documents would show that the age of the victim is 13 Years and 5 Months and the applicant enticed her away despite knowing full well that she is a minor and committed rape with her and the prosecutrix in her deposition has stated that the applicant has committed rape with her. Therefore, considering the entire facts & circumstances of the case and specially the age of the victim, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail. 10. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected. 11. However, the concerned trial Court is directed to expedite the trial as the applicant is in jail since 05.08.2025 and about one year has already been lapsed. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Manish