1 CGHC010176072026 2026:CGHC:40244 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No.4174 of 2026 Khyati Vishwakarma @ Sona D/o. Ajay Vishwakarma Aged About 24 Years R/o. Kachharipara, Kawardha, Police Station- Kawardha, District- Kabirdham (C.G.) ... Applicant (In Jail) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station- Kawardha, District- Kabirdham (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant : Shri Chandrikaditya Pandey, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Shri Vivek Sharma, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 15/09/2026 1. Heard. 2. On 06.08.2026, the minor victim along with her father appeared before this Court through video conferencing and raised objection regarding grant of bail to the applicant. 3. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant, who has been arrested in connection with Crime No.123/2026, registered at Police Station Kawardha, District Kabirdham (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 4 of the POCSO Act. SATISH TUMANE Digitally signed by SATISH TUMANE Date: 2026.09.18 12:10:55 +0530 2 4. As per the case of the prosecution, an FIR was lodged by the victim himself on 2.04.2026 to the effect that the applicant-accused, who is a major lady, sexually exploited him between 01/03/2026 to 02/03/2026. It is further stated in the FIR that the victim came in contact with the present applicant through social media and she invited the present applicant in a hotel on 01/03/2026 and thereafter, she sexually assaulted the victim, who was a student of Class 11th. On such a complaint, the police has registered the offence against the applicant- accused as stated above. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant would argue that the victim has already been examined before the learned trial Court and he has not supported the case of the prosecution. He would submit that even the victim denied the suggestions given by the Public Prosecutor. He would contend that the applicant is in jail since 03.04.2026, therefore, he prays that the applicant be released on regular bail. 6. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application of the applicant and submits that on the date of incident, the victim was aged 16 years, therefore, this bail application deserves to be rejected. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused all the documents available on record. 8. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly considering the fact that the victim has already been examined and he has not supported the case of the prosecution and even he denied the suggestions given by the Public Prosecutor at threshold and also considering the fact that the applicant is in jail since 03.04.2026, I am inclined to allow this application. 3 9. Accordingly, the instant bail application of the applicant is allowed. It is directed that in the event of the applicant executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Trial Court, she shall be released on bail on the following conditions:- I. She 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/her from disclosing such fact to the Court; II. She shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to a fair and expeditious trial; III. She shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to her by the said Court till the disposal of the trial; and, IV. She shall not involve herself in any offence of a similar nature in future. 10. The observation made in the course of this order is only for considering the case of the applicant on the application for the grant of regular bail. The concerned trial Court shall not be influenced or bound by any observation made in the course of this order. 11. Certified copy as per rules. SD/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Tumane