1 CGHC010207792026 2026:CGHC:39937 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 4868 of 2026  Ayush Singh Aged About 24 Years 05 Months, S/o Omkar Singh Thakur, R/o Village Ghutheli, Police Station MungeliMungeli, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus  State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer Police Station MungeliMungeli, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Sourav Agrawal, Adv. on behalf of Mr. Ratnesh Agrawal, Adv. For Non-applicant : Mrs. Shubha Shrivastava, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order On Board 11.09.2026 1) The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 113/2026 registered at Police Station City Kotwali, District Mungeli (C.G.) for the offence under Sections 64(2)(m) and 69 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita r/w Sections 5(I) and 6 of POCSO Act and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act. 2 2) Case of the prosecution, in brief is that applicant and prosecutrix came into contact by Instagram and started chatting. Thereafter, applicant made sexual relations with the prosecutrix, who was a minor on pretext of marriage from 1604.2023 till 09.03.2026. Thereafter, written complaint was made by the prosecutrix on 25.03.2026 and FIR was lodged subsequently. On the basis of these allegations, the police arrested the present applicant and hence, the present bail application. 3) Learned counsel for the applicant submits that there was no coercion on the part of present applicant and the prosecutrix was a consenting party and there was love relation between them. He further submits that charge-sheet has been filed, there are three criminal antecedents against the applicant and he is languishing in jail since 11.04.2026 whereas conclusion of trial is likely to take time, therefore, instant bail application may kindly be allowed. 4) On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that given that the victim was 17 years and 3 months old at the time of the incident, she remained a minor, rendering any alleged consent legally invalid. She further submits that this bail application deserves to be rejected. 5) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 3 6) It appears that applicant and prosecutrix came into contact through social media and applicant made physical relations with prosecutrix on various occasions on the pretext of marriage despite her being minor at that time. Also, there are three previous criminal antecedents against the present applicant. 7) Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, in the opinion of this Court, the bail application filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 is rejected. However, concerned trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and to ensure that the trial is concluded as expeditiously as possible. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE A j i n k y a Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2026.09.11 17:24:12 +0530