1 CGHC010236902026 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 5889 of 2026 Mohit Khande S/o Kaushal Aged About 18 Years R/o Gram Baghmar P.S. Fasterpur, Tehsil -Lormi, District Mungeli C.G ... Appellant versus State of Chhattisgarh through Station House Officer P.S. Fasterpur, District Mungeli C.G. ... Respondent For the applicant : Dr. Arpit Lall, Advocate For the State/Respondent : Mr. Rohitashwa Singh, Dy. G.A. (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Order on Board 02.09.2026 1. This is second bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant in Crime No. 50/2025 registered at Police Station Fasterpur, District Mungeli (CG) for the offences under Sections 137(2), 87, 64(1), 351(2), 3(5) of BNS and Sections 5(l) and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. 2. The first bail application was rejected by order dated 11.02.2026 passed in MCRC No. 174 of 2026. [ 3. As per the prosecution case, the allegation against the applicant is that the applicant knowing fully well that the victim was minor kidnapped her on 04.09.2025 from the lawful guardianship of her parents with the help of other accused and took her to Bilaspur, where he kept her in a rented house for a week and committed sexual intercourse with her, as a ALLENA ANNAJEE RAO Digitally signed by ALLENA ANNAJEE RAO Date: 2026.09.02 16:05:34 +0530 2 result of which, she became pregnant. Thereafter, on 13.09.2025 the applicant left her at Mungeli bus-stand and ran away. On a report being lodged in this regard, the applicant was arrested on 17.09.2025. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the victim’s court statement could not be filed by the time of rejection of first bail application. He submits that the victim is major; she herself accompanied the applicant and her court statement reveals that there were love affairs between the victim and applicant. He refers to paras 23 to 32 of her court statement and submits that she was a consenting party. It is further submitted that till date out of total 29 witnesses, only 9 witnesses have been examined; applicant is in jail since 07.09.2025 and there is no immediate possibility of conclusion of the case, therefore, the applicant. 5. Per contra, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application and submits that at the time of incident, the victim was minor, therefore, the bail should be rejected. 6. The Victim’s parents remained unserved as they are reported to have gone to Hyderabad for earning livelihood. 7. Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and looking to the court statement of Victim from paras 23 to 32 as also the long custody of the applicant and the fact that the trial is yet to take time, without observing anything on merits of the case, I am inclined to release the applicant on regular bail. 8. Accordingly, this bail application is allowed and the applicant is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing a bond in sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the said Court as and when directed in that behalf. Cc as per rules. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Rao