1 CGHC010247052026 2026:CGHC:40795 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 5925 of 2026 1 - Shoddodhan Gautam Khandare S/o Gautam Khandare Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Patkhed, P.S. Barshitakli, Distt. Akola, Maharashtra. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Of Police Station Bhakhara, Distt. Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Applicant : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Sahu, Advocate For Non-Applicant : Mr. Vivek Sharma, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 18.09.2026 1. This is the First bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 102/2025 registered at Police Station : Bhakhara, District : Dhamtari (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 137(2), NIRMALA RAO 2 87 & 64(2)(ड) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act. 2. As per the case of the prosecution, on 22.9.2025, the father of the victim lodged a written complaint to the effect that his minor daughter, aged about 17 years and 7 months, had been missing since 20.9.2025. On the basis of the said complaint, the police registered a missing report. Subsequently, the victim was recovered from the company of the accused on 20.4.2026 and, on the basis of her statement, the police registered the offence as stated above and arrested the applicant. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that there was an affair between the victim and the present applicant and that they have already solemnized their marriage. He would further contend that the victim has been examined before the learned Trial Court, where she has not supported the case of the prosecution. He also submits that the applicant has no criminal antecedents and has been in jail since 21.04.2026. He would submit that the conclusion of the trial may take some time and, therefore, prays for grant of regular bail to the present applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application of the present applicant and submits that the age of the victim was below 18 years and that she was not capable of giving her consent. He would submit that, as there are serious allegations of sexual assault against the present applicant, the applicant is not entitled to grant of regular bail. 3 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. It transpires that the victim appeared before this Court on 13.08.2026 through video conferencing and submitted that she has no objection to the grant of bail to the applicant. Perusal of the documents placed on record would reveal that the victim has already been examined before the learned Trial Court as PW-1 and that she has not supported the case of the prosecution. She further denied the suggestions put forth by the Public Prosecutor and stated that she wanted to marry the present applicant and had accompanied him of her own free will. Also considering the fact that the applicant has been in jail since 21.04.2026 and that the trial is likely to take some time to conclude, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 7. It is directed that in the event of the applicant executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court, he shall be released on bail on the following conditions:- (a) he shall make himself available for interrogation by the police officer as and when required; (b)he shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such fact to the Court; and (c) he shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to a fair and expeditious trial. 4 The observation made hereinabove is for the purpose of deciding this bail application only, the learned trial Court shall decide the case on its own merits. - Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Nimmi