1 CGHC010348732026 2026:CGHC:42343 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 8423 of 2026 Ayushman Dongre S/o Kundan Dongre Aged About 23 Years R/o Aamapara, Sarthi Chowk, Ward No.- 40, Near Laxman Baggi, Raipur, P.S. Azad Chowk, Raipur, (C.G.). ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Mohan Nagar, District- Durg, (C.G.). ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Hemant Agrawal, Advocate For Non- Applicant /State : Mrs. Smriti Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 29/09/2026 1. This is the first bail application filed by the applicant under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) for grant of regular bail in connection with Crime No. 332/2026, registered at Police Station Mohan Nagar, District Durg (C.G.), for alleged commission of offences punishable under: Sections 64(2)(m), 115(2), and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS); and Sections 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012. 2 2. As per the case of the prosecution, the applicant, under the false pretext and promise of marriage, enticed the prosecutrix/victim, took her to Surya Hotel situated near Dhamdha Naka, Durg, and established repeated physical relations with her against her will and consent knowing the fact that the victim is minor. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated. The applicant has no criminal antecedents. Investigation is complete and the charge-sheet has already been filed, his custodial interrogation is no longer warranted. The relationship, if any, was consensual, and the applicant has been incarcerated since 30.05.2026; thus, the applicant may be enlarged on bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel vehemently opposes the prayer for bail. 5. The victim appeared before this Court through VC with the aid of concerned DLSA. She raised serious objections to the grant of bail to the applicant. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. The victim was admittedly a minor below 16 years old at the time of incident. It is well settled legal position that consent of a minor victim is irrelevant. A minor lacks the maturity and cognitive capacity to grant a valid, informed legal consent. The allegations against the applicant involve aggravated penetrative sexual assault under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Section 64(2)(m) of the BNS. Further, the prosecutrix appeared personally before this Court through VC and raised serious objection to the application filed for grant of bail by the applicant. 8. Considering the entirety of the facts and circumstances, the serious nature and gravity of the allegations, the statutory bar regarding consent of a minor, and the serious objections raised directly by the 3 victim, this Court does not find it a fit case to enlarge the applicant on regular bail. 9. Accordingly, the first bail application filed on behalf of the applicant under Section 483 of the BNSS stands rejected. 10.It is made clear that observations recorded herein are strictly confined to the disposal of this bail application and shall not be construed as an opinion on the merits of the case during trial. Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE Nadim