1 CGHC010296452026 2026:CGHC:41152 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 6986 of 2026 Nitesh Banjare S/o Sansay Banjare Aged About 18 Years R/o Village Bhadhra Police Station Kosir, District Sarangarh, Bilaigarh C.G. ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through S.H.O. Of The Police Station Kosir, District Sarangarh, Bilaigarh, C.G. ... Non-Applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Abhishek Saraf, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Laxmin Kashyap, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Mr. Rakesh Mohan Pandey, Judge Order on Board 22/09/2026 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 65/2026, registered at Police Station Kosir, District Sarangarh- Bilaigarh (C.G.), for the offences punishable under Sections 87, 137(2), 64(1), 64(2)(m) and 65 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 4(2) and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 2. The prosecution case in brief is that on 13.05.2026, the father of the victim lodged a written report at Police Station Kosir alleging that his daughter, aged about 16 years, had been lured by the applicant through a love relationship and thereafter the applicant had taken her to his aunt's village Kutela on 16.03.2026 and allegedly subjected her to sexual intercourse. It is further alleged that on 12.05.2026, at about 12:30 a.m., while the victim was sleeping, the applicant called her to his house and took her away. In the morning she was brought back from the applicant's house. On the basis of the aforesaid report, the offences under the aforesaid provisions were registered against the applicant and after completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been filed before the competent Court. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that the victim and her father have already been examined before the learned trial Court as PW-1 and PW-2 on 13.08.2026 and they have not supported the case of the prosecution and have denied the suggestions put forth by the learned Public Prosecutor. He further submits that there is a delay of about two months in lodging the FIR, as the alleged incident is stated to have taken place on 16.03.2026 whereas the written complaint was lodged by the father of the victim on 13.05.2026, which creates serious doubt regarding the prosecution story. It is further submitted that there is no medical evidence available on record to corroborate the allegation of sexual intercourse and the 3 MLC is also negative and does not support the prosecution case. He also submits that the applicant is in custody since 14.05.2026, the charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time. On these grounds, learned counsel prays for grant of bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bail and submits that on the date of the alleged incident, the victim was aged about 15 years and 6 months and therefore, was a minor. She further submits that serious allegations of sexual assault have been levelled against the applicant and the offences alleged against him are of serious nature. On these grounds, learned State counsel prays for rejection of the bail application. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary and the material available on record. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of the offences alleged against the applicant, particularly the fact that the victim and her father have already been examined before the learned trial Court and have not supported the case of the prosecution and have denied the suggestions put forth by the prosecution and moreover, the victim along with her father given their consent for grant of bail and in the present case, charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court and the applicant is in custody since 14.05.2026 and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, this Court is of the considered view that the applicant deserves to be released on regular bail. 4 7. Accordingly, the 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, he shall be released on bail on the following conditions:- (i) 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; (ii) he shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial, & (iii) he shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to him by the said Court till disposal of the trial. 8. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information and compliance. dorthwith. Sd/- Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Kunal