1 CGHC010346902026 2026:CGHC:42342 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 8433 of 2026 Rahul Baghel S/o Raju Baghel, Aged About 19 Years R/o Kundra Para, Ward No. 54, Potia Police Station - Padmanabhpur, District - Durg (C.G.). ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Pulgaon Durg C.G. ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Ankush Soni, Advocate For Non-Applicant : Ms. Priya Sharma, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 29/09/2026 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) for grant of regular bail to the applicant, who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 104/2026, registered at Police Station Pulgaon, District Durg (C.G.), for alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 137(2), 87, and 64 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the father of the victim lodged an oral report at Police Station Pulgaon stating that his minor daughter/prosecutrix, aged about 16 years and 2 months, was residing 2 at her uncle's house in Potiyakala Basti, Durg. On 26.01.2026 at about 9:00 AM, she left the house stating that she was going to witness the Republic Day celebrations at Ravishankar Stadium, but did not return home. Despite searches in the neighborhood and among relatives, her whereabouts could not be traced. On the basis of the oral report, a missing person report was initially registered. During the course of the investigation, on 28.01.2026, the minor prosecutrix was recovered from the possession and house of the applicant at Potiyakala, Durg and her statement was recorded. The applicant was arrested on 28.01.2026. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant would submit that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the case. The applicant has been languishing in jail since 28.01.2026. Investigation is complete and the charge-sheet has already been filed, hence custodial detention is no longer required; thus, the applicant may be enlarged on regular bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submits that the prosecutrix was a minor aged barely 16 years and 2 months on the date of the incident. She was recovered directly from the custody and house of the applicant within two days of going missing. In her statements recorded during the investigation, she has corroborated the allegations constituting sexual assault. 5. Pursuant to the order dated 10.09.2026, the victim appeared before this Court through Video Conferencing and raised serious objection to the grant of bail to the applicant. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. The prosecutrix was admittedly a minor aged 16 years and 2 months at the time of the incident and was below the statutory age of consent. In an offence under the POCSO Act, the consent of a minor is not relevant. 3 8. In the present case, the minor girl went missing on 26.01.2026 under suspicious circumstances and was recovered on 28.01.2026 from the residence of the applicant. The allegations against the applicant relate to sexual assault upon a child. The victim has also appeared before this Court and has strongly opposed the grant of bail to the applicant. 9. Considering the age of the victim, the nature of the allegations, the circumstances in which she went missing, and her recovery from the residence of the applicant, this Court is of the view that the mere completion of investigation and filing of the charge-sheet do not, at this stage, entitle the applicant to regular bail. Accordingly, the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the BNSS is hereby rejected. Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE Nadim