1 CGHC010165172026 2026:CGHC:39917 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 4703 of 2026 1 - Sagar Khunte S/o- Heeralal Khunte Aged About 24 Years R/o- Village- Bhatanpali, P.S.- Jutmil, District- Raigarh (C.G.) ... Applicant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through , Station House Officer Women Police Station Raigarh, District- Raigarh (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Nitesh Sahu, Advocate For Non-applicant : Mr. Sumit Singh, Dy. A.G. 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 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS'), for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No.35/2025, registered at Police Station -Woman Police Station Raigarh, District Raigarh (CG) for the offence punishable under Section 137(2), 64(2), 64(2)(M), 65(1) and 87 of BNS, 2023 and Section 5 (J) (ii) (L) & 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences, Act 2012. 2 2) As per the prosecution case, in brief, the mother of the prosecutrix lodged a complaint alleging that the present applicant developed a relationship with her minor girl through mobile phone and Instagram and, despite knowing her age, established physical relations with her on the pretext of marriage, resulting in her pregnancy. The prosecutrix subsequently gave birth to a baby girl. On the basis of the complaint, the offences were registered against the present applicant. 3) Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant has falsely been implicated in the present case. He would submit that the victim has already been examined and there are contradictions and omissions in her evidence. He would further submit that the applicant is in jail since 17.11.2025. He would contend that age of the victim was more than 18 years on the date of incident. He would pray to allow the bail application of the present applicant. 4) On the other hand, learned State counsel would oppose the bail application and submit that, in her examination-in-chief, the victim has supported the case of the prosecution and has categorically made allegations of sexual assault against the applicant. He would further submit that the question of determination of the age of the victim is to be considered by the learned Trial Court on the basis of the material available on record. He would contend that, on the date of the alleged incident, the victim was aged about 17 years and was a minor, and she was forcibly sexually exploited by the applicant, therefore, the bail application deserves to be rejected. 5) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 3 6) The issue regarding the age of the victim is to be considered by the learned Trial Court on the basis of the material available on record. At this stage, it would not be appropriate for this Court to make any observation on said issue. 7) The victim has already been examined as PW-1. In paragraph 5 of her statement, she has categorically stated that the applicant had sexual relations with her on the pretext of marriage. She has further stated that she was taken to the house of the applicant, where the applicant again established physical relations with her. Thereafter, when she conceived, the applicant denied that the pregnancy was from him, pursuant to which the FIR was lodged. 8) Having considered the statement of the victim and the allegations against the applicant, I do not find any good ground to grant bail to the applicant. Accordingly, the bail application filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 is rejected. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Rekha