1 CGHC010290962026 2026:CGHC:36982 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 7274 of 2026 1 - Bhupat Karsh S/o Late Laincharan Karsh Aged About 53 Years R/o Quarter No. M/ 475, Ompur Colony Chauki Rajgamar, P.S. Balco District- Korba Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Balco Nagar, Chauki- Rajgamar, District- Korba (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Ms. Seema Singh, Advocate For State : Dr. Richa Pandey, P.L. For Objector : Mr. Keshav Dewangann Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order On Board 18/08/2026 1. This is the Third bail application filed under Section 483 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicants who have been arrested in connection with crime No.09/2026, registered at Police Station – Balco Nagar, Chauki- Rajgamar, District Korba, (C.G.) for offence punishable under Section 65(2) of BNS and under Section 4 of POCSO Act. 2. The First Bail Application of the applicants in MCRC No.2345/2026 was rejected on merits vide order dated 27/03/2026 ARPAN SRIVASTAVA Digitally signed by ARPAN SRIVASTAVA Date: 2026.08.19 19:21:27 +0530 2 and the second bail in MCRC No.3783/2026 was withdraw vide dated 12.05.2026. 3. The prosecution case is that the case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant, who is the mother of the victim, lodged a report at the concerned Police Station alleging that, on the date of the incident, the present applicant attempted to outrage the modesty of the victim and, thereafter, fled from the spot. On the basis of the said report, the police registered a case against the present applicant for the offences punishable under Section 65(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the victim and her mother have not supported the prosecution case in their statements before the learned Trial Court and the medical evidence also does not corroborate the allegations. The applicant is in custody since 03.01.2026 and has already undergone more than six months of incarceration. He is ready to abide by all the conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he may be released on bail. 5. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the allegations against the applicant are serious in nature. It is further submitted that at the time of the alleged incident, the victim was only 4 years of age and the offence 3 alleged against the applicant is grave and heinous in nature. Therefore, considering the tender age of the victim and the seriousness of the allegations, the applicant does not deserve the benefit of bail. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary as well as the material available on record. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the objector, who appeared through video conferencing, submits that he has no objection to the prayer for bail made by the applicant. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the fact that the alleged incident took place on 01.01.2026, whereas the FIR was lodged on 03.01.2026, resulting in a delay of two days, and out of the total 18 prosecution witnesses, only 3 witnesses have so far been examined, including the victim’s mother and her paternal aunt, who have already been examined before the learned Trial Court, and also considering the period of custody already undergone by the applicant, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail. Accordingly, this Court is inclined to allow the present third bail application. I am inclined to allow the present third bail application. 9. Accordingly, this bail application is allowed, and the applicant is directed to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond in 4 the sum of 20,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the ₹ satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the said Court on each and every date as may be directed in that behalf. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Arpan