1 CGHC010271142026 2026:CGHC:40472 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 6521 of 2026 1 - Yuvan @ Shiva Bansfor S/o Chandan Bansfor Aged About 20 Years R/o Bajrangpur Navagaon, Ward No. 01, P.S.- O.P. Chikhli, Thana- Kotwali, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh (Through S.H.O. P.S. Kotwali Dist. Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Ravi Kumar Bodhani through V.C. along with Mr. Ankush Soni, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Jitendra Gupta, G.A. Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 16.09.2026 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 501/2025, registered at Police Station Kotwali Rajnandgaon (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 137(2), 87, 64(2)(m), 65(1) of BNS, 5(L) and 6 of POCSO Act. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the applicant sexually assaulted the victim, aged about 13 years, on the pretext of marriage. The FIR was lodged against the applicant by the father of the victim, pursuant to which the offences, as stated above, were registered Digitally signed by JYOTI JHA Date: 2026.09.17 17:14:00 +0530 2 against him. 3. In pursuance of the notice issued to the victim, vide order dated 31.08.2026, the victim along with her father appeared before this Court through virtual mode and raised objection to releasing the applicant on bail. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant would submit that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. He would submit that the victim and the applicant were known to each other, but no offence as alleged was committed by the applicant. The applicant is in jail since 13.09.2025. He, therefore, prays for grant of bail to the applicant. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the victim was aged about 13 years at the time of the incident and has already been examined before the Trial Court, wherein she has supported the prosecution case. He further submits that the allegations against the applicant are serious in nature and, therefore, application moved by the applicant for grant of bail may be rejected. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. It is a well-settled principle of law that a mini-trial is not permissible at the stage of entertaining the bail application. It has been held by the Supreme Court in a catena of decisions that the Courts are precluded from undertaking a detailed examination of the evidence and such duty is cast upon the Trial Court. The reliability and credibility of the 3 evidence cannot be adjudicated at this stage. 8. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the fact that the victim has supported the prosecution case in her examination-in-chief, the age of the victim being 13 years on the date of the incident, and the serious allegations of sexual exploitation against the applicant, I am not inclined to grant bail to the applicant. Accordingly, the present bail application is rejected. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Jyoti