1 CGHC010283552026 2026:CGHC:40841 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 6796 of 2026 Motichand Panika @ Mahanpariha @ Jolha @ Deriha S/o Dashrath Panika Aged About 54 Years R/o Village- Lurgikhurd, P.S.- Chalgali, District - Balrampur- Ramanujganj (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, P.S.- Chalgali, District - Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Shri Prasoon Agrawal and Ms. Sweksha Sharma, Advocates For Non-Applicant/State : Shri Vivek Sharma, P.L. (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAKESH MOHAN PANDEY) Order on Board 18/09/2026 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.15/2026, registered at Police Station Chalgali, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 65(1) of BNS and Section 4(2) of POCSO Act, 2012 Act as well as under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 2. As per the case of the prosecution, on 17.03.2026, a written report was lodged by the complainant/victim in Police Outpost Ranhat making Digitally signed by ALLENA ANJANI KUMAR Date: 2026.09.21 13:22:41 +0530 2 allegations that on the night of 04.03.2026 the applicant came to her house to consume liquor along with her brother and after finding her brother and everyone fell asleep, he took the victim outside around 10:00 pm and committed sexual assault on her. It has also been mentioned in the written report that at the time of incident, she was 14 years and 6 months, on the basis of which, FIR was lodged against the applicant, pursuant to which, the offences, as stated above, were registered against him. 3. Victim appeared through the video conferencing and raised strong objection with respect to grant of bail to the applicant. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant would submit that the applicant has not committed any sexual assault. He would further submit that the victim has already been examined before the learned trial Court, in which, she has not supported the case of the prosecution. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is in jail since 18.03.2026 and conclusion of trial may take some considerable time. He, therefore, prays for grant of bail to the applicant. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel would oppose the bail application and contend that the on the date of incident, victim was minor girl and she was taken away by the applicant without her and parents’ consent. It is also contended that the victim in her statement has supported the case of the prosecution and that, there are serious allegations of sexual abuse against the present applicant, and therefore, the bail application deserves to be dismissed. 3 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the fact that at the time of incident, the victim was below 18 years of age and that the victim has been examined before the learned trial Court and she has supported the case of the prosecution and considering the fact that she made serious allegations with regard to sexual assault against the present applicant and further the victim was below 18 years of age at the time of incident, I am not inclined to grant bail to the present applicant. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Anjani