1 CGHC010293372026 2026:CGHC:41151 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 7175 of 2026 Duleshwar Sahu S/o Ishwar Lal Sahu Aged About 20 Years R/o Ward No. 3, Nagar Panchayat Amdi, Tehsil And District Dhamtari C.G. ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Arjuni, District Dhamtari C.G. ... Non-Applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Prasoon Agrawal, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Vivek Sharma, 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 Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 78/2026, registered at Police Station Arjuni, District Dhamtari (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 64(2)(m) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that the mother of the victim KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 lodged a written report at Police Station Arjuni on 26.06.2026 stating that her daughter/victim, aged about 17 years and 4 days, had informed her on 22.06.2026 about the incident. It was alleged that during the year 2025, the victim came into acquaintance with the applicant, Duleshwar Sahu, at school and both started talking to each other. It was further alleged that during such interaction, the applicant expressed his love and promised to marry the victim and on 20.02.2026, took her on his motorcycle to a field, where at about 8:00 p.m. he had sexual intercourse with her. It was further alleged that thereafter, the applicant took her to the said field on several occasions and had sexual intercourse with her and lastly, on 20.04.2026, had sexual intercourse with her, as a result of which she became pregnant. The victim was stated to be about two and a half months pregnant. On the basis of the report, the aforesaid offence was registered against the applicant. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He would further submit that the victim has already been examined before the learned trial Court and has not supported the case of the prosecution and has denied the suggestions put forth by the prosecution. He would further submit that there is a delay in lodging the FIR. It is also submitted that the applicant is in custody since 27.06.2026 and in the present case, charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time therefore, he prays for grant of bail. 3 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel would oppose the prayer for grant of bail and submits that on the date of incident, the victim was aged about 17 years and 4 months as such she was a minor and in the FIR, serious allegations of sexual assault have been made against the present applicant. Accordingly, he submits that the bail application of the applicant is liable to be rejected. 5. Pursuant to the order dated 06.08.2026, the victim along with her father appeared before this Court through video conferencing and expressed their consent for grant of bail to the applicant. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case- diary as well as material available on record. 7. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, particularly that the victim along with her father has appeared before this Court through video conferencing and jointly expressed their consent for grant of bail to the applicant and also considering the fact that the victim has already been examined before the learned trial Court and has not supported the case of the prosecution and has denied the suggestions put forth by the prosecution and the applicant is in custody since 27.06.2026 and the charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent Court, thus without further commenting upon the merits of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the applicant deserves to be released on regular bail. 8. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant is allowed. It is directed that in the event of the applicant executing a personal bond 4 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. 9. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information and compliance. dorthwith. - S/- Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Kunal