1 CGHC010297942026 2026:CGHC:40440 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 7015 of 2026 Bhupesh Kumar Yadav S/o Shriram Yadav Aged About 25 Years R/o Amera, Thana Taregaon, Jangal District Kabeerdham C.G. ... Applicant versus The State Of Chhattisgarh Through S.H.O. Thana Taregaon, Jangal, District – Kabeerdham, C.G. ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Samir Singh, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Monika Thakur, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Rakesh Mohan Pandey, Judge Order on Board 16.09.2026 1. Heard Mr. Samir Singh, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Ms. Monika Thakur, learned Panel Lawyer for the Non- applicant/State. 2. This is the First bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant arrested in connection with Crime No. 07/2025 registered at Police Station – Taregaon, Jangal, District – Kabeerdham (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 137(2), 87, 64(2)(m) of the BNS and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. 3. As per the prosecution’s story, the mother of the victim has lodged the report on 08.04.2025 at Police Station concerned and alleged that on 07.04.2025 her daughter is missing and she was recovered RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 from possession of the accused no 23.09.2025 and alleged that the accused has committed rape with her, therefore, on the basis of the report, the Police registered the offence against the applicant. Hence, this application. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. He submits that the victim is aged about 16 years and had stayed with the applicant at various places for a couple of months, and thereafter, she was recovered on 23.09.2025. He would further submit that there was a consensual relationship between the applicant and the victim and that, on account of objections created by the family members of the victim, the present FIR has been lodged. It is further submitted that the charge-sheet has been filed and the applicant is in jail since 23.09.2025. Therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the applicant. 5. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application of the present applicant and submits that serious allegations of sexual assault have been levelled against the applicant. It is submitted that the victim was aged about 15 years and 10 months on the date of the incident and, therefore, the plea of consent raised by the applicant is of no relevance. He, therefore, submits that the bail application deserves to be rejected. 6. The victim, along with her mother, has appeared before this Court through video conferencing facilitated by the District Legal Services Authority (DLSA) and has objected to the prayer for grant of bail. 7. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused 3 the case diary. 8. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, and the allegations levelled against the applicant that he abducted the minor child/victim, who was aged about 15 years and 10 months at the relevant time, and subjected her to sexual assault for a couple of months at various places, and that thereafter, the victim was recovered from the possession of the applicant on 23.09.2025, pursuant to which the present FIR was lodged, it is not appropriate to grant bail to the applicant at this stage. The statement of the victim was also recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS, wherein serious allegations of forcible sexual assault have been levelled against the applicant. Therefore, having regard to the gravity of the offence and the manner in which it is alleged to have been committed, I am not inclined to grant bail to the applicant at this stage. Accordingly, the bail application is hereby rejected. 9. Let a certified copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rajshekhar