1 CGHC010151522026 2026:CGHC:39903 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No.3564 of 2026 Mayank Patle S/o Bhupendra Kumar Patle Aged About 21 Years R/o Village Gattani School Ke Samne, Lotus Gali, Ward No.09, Janjgir, Police Station Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant : Shri Arpit Lal, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Shri Amit Verma, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 11/09/2026 1. Heard. 2. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant, who has been arrested in connection with Crime No.217/2026, registered at Police Station Janjgir, District Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 64(2)(M) and 87 of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act. 3. On 22.06.2026, the victim appeared before this Court along with her father and stated that she has no objection to the release of the applicant on bail. SATISH TUMANE Digitally signed by SATISH TUMANE Date: 2026.09.11 18:08:16 +0530 2 4. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that an FIR was lodged on 15.03.2026 to the effect that during the period with effect from 10.08.2024 to 15.12.2025, the applicant herein has sexually exploited the victim and at the relevant point of time, the victim was aged 17 years, 7 months and 27 days. Based upon such an FIR, the police has registered the offence against the applicant-accused and he was arrested. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant would contend that the victim has already been examined before the learned trial Court and there are contradictions and omissions in her deposition. It is also argued that the age of the victim was more than 18 years on the date of incident and she was a consenting party. He would further submit that the applicant is in jail since 15.03.2026, therefore, he prays that the applicant be released on regular bail. 6. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application of the applicant and submits that in examination-in-chief, the victim has supported the case of the prosecution and categorically stated that she was sexually exploited by the applicant herein and her objectionable photographs were also taken by the applicant and threatened her to upload the same on social media. He also submits that the issue of age of the victim is a matter, which is pending consideration before the learned trial Court, therefore, this bail application deserves to be rejected. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused all the documents available on record. 8. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that on the date of incident, the age of the victim was 17 years, 7 months and 27 days, but 3 the issue of the age cannot be determined at this stage. It is for the learned trial Court to decide this issue. With regard to the evidence of the victim, in examination-in-chief, she has categorically stated that when she was studying 11th class, she was taken to lonely place by the applicant and, where she was sexually exploited by the applicant many times and her objectionable photographs were also taken. It is also stated that the applicant threatened the victim to upload the said objectionable photographs in the social media. Though, there are contradictions and omissions in the cross-examination of the victim, but the evidence cannot be appreciated while entertaining bail application. 9. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above and the evidence of the victim, I am not inclined to allow this application. 10. Accordingly, the instant bail application of the applicant is dismissed. SD/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Tumane