1 CGHC010280242026 2026:CGHC:40668 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 6850 of 2026 Rama Padami S/o Muda Padami Aged About 21 Years R/o Udalatarai, Ps- Chhindgarh, District Sukama (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station- Chhindgarh, Dist. Sukama (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Shri Dinesh Tiwari, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Ritika Verma, Panel Lawyer (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAKESH MOHAN PANDEY) Order on Board 17/09/2026 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. 55/2025, registered at Police Station Chhindgarh, District Sukama (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 64(2)(M), 137(2), 351(2) of BNS and Section 6 of POCSO Act. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that report was lodged by the victim, aged about 16 years and 8 months on 23.10.2025 making allegations that she was diagnosed as five months pregnant. It is further alleged that the present applicant, who is resident of same village forcibly took her away to the back side of his house and Digitally signed by ALLENA ANJANI KUMAR Date: 2026.09.18 17:00:08 +0530 2 sexually assaulted her. He repeated the incident many times. Pursuant to the report lodged by the prosecutrix, the FIR was registered against the applicant for the offences as stated above. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant would argue that the applicant is in jail since 24.10.2025. The victim has already been examined before the trial Court and there are contradictions and omissions in her evidence. It is also contended that there is no mention in the charge-sheet with regard to age of the prosecutrix. It is also argued that out of 22 witnesses, till now only two witnesses have been examined. He, therefore, prays for grant of bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel would oppose the bail application and submit that the present applicant sexually abused the victim prior to 23.10.2025 and resultantly she became pregnant. She would further argue that in her evidence, the victim has supported the case of the prosecution. She would also contend that the credibility of evidence can be assessed by the learned trial Court and mini-trial is not permissible while entertaining the application for grant of bail. She would submit that this application moved by the applicant for grant of bail deserves to be rejected. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Perusal of case diary would show that the applicant physically abused the victim when she was around 16 years of age and the matter surfaced when the victim became pregnant. While entertaining a bail application, the evidence or the documents based on the charge-sheet 3 though can be looked into but no determination with regard to the age of the victim can be arrived at this stage. The evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses and its credibility cannot be assessed because mini-trial at the stage of entertaining a bail application is not permissible. In evidence, the victim has made serious allegations of sexual assault against the present applicant and has also supported the case of the prosecution. 7. Having considered the fact that the victim, in her statement recorded before the learned Trial Court, has made serious allegations against the present applicant with regard to sexual assault, and further considering the fact that she was aged about 16 years of age at the time of the incident, I do not find any good ground to enlarge the applicant on bail. Accordingly, the bail application filed by the applicant is rejected. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan pandey) JUDGE Anjani