1 CGHC010258612026 2026:CGHC:41153 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 6434 of 2026 Mahesh Sahu S/o Kumbhkaran Sahu Aged About 19 Years Resident Of Village Chatauda, Police Station Vidhansabha, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Station House Officer, Police Of Police Station Gidhpuri, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Ramsajiwan, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Ankita Shukla, 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 short, 'BNSS'), for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No.170/2025, registered at Police Station Gidhpuri, District Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 137(2), 87 and 64(2)(m) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 4 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 11.12.2025, a missing report was lodged at Police Station Gidhpuri regarding the victim. During the course of investigation, the victim was recovered from the possession of the present applicant. It is alleged that the applicant enticed and took the victim with him on the promise of marriage and thereafter repeatedly subjected her to sexual intercourse and committed repeated sexual assault upon her, including aggravated penetrative sexual assault. Accordingly, the aforesaid offences were registered against the applicant and after completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been filed before the concerned Court. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant would submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He would further submits that the victim and her father have already been examined before the learned trial Court and they have not supported the case of the prosecution. It is further submitted that the prosecution has failed to establish that the victim was a minor on the date of the alleged incident, as no cogent evidence has been collected by the prosecution in this regard. It is further submitted that there was a love affair between the applicant and the victim and prima facie, the relationship between them appears to be consensual, as they remained in such relationship for a considerable period of time. He further submits that the applicant is in custody since 16.12.2025, 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 3 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, in her cross-examination, particularly in paragraph 6, the victim has supported the case of the prosecution and has stated that while she was a minor, she was subjected to sexual assault by the applicant at various places during the period from 10.12.2025 to 15.12.2025. She further submits that on the date of the alleged incident, the victim was aged about 17 years and 2 months and therefore, was a minor. Thus, the submission advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that the victim has not supported the case of the prosecution cannot be accepted at this stage. She further submits that prima facie serious allegations have been levelled against the applicant and, therefore, the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail. 5. Pursuant to the order dated 17.08.2026, the victim along with her parents appeared before this Court and raised serious objection to the grant of bail to the applicant. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary as well as the material available on record. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of the offence alleged against the applicant and particularly, the fact that the victim, who was below 18 years of age on the date of the alleged incident, has supported the case of the prosecution in her cross-examination and has made specific and serious allegations of sexual assault against the applicant and the material 4 available on record prima facie discloses the involvement of the applicant in the alleged offence. The fact that the victim has already been examined before the learned trial Court and the prosecution case has been supported by her cannot be lightly ignored at this stage. 8. At the stage of considering a bail application, this Court is not required to undertake a detailed appreciation of the evidence or assess the reliability and credibility of the prosecution witness, which is a matter to be considered at the stage of final adjudication. Having regard to the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail. 9. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed with and conclude the trial expeditiously. 10. Office is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance. - S/- Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Kunal