1 2026:CGHC:4671 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 376 of 2026 1 - Ghanshyam Yadav S/o Late Harelal Yadav Aged About 20 Years R/o Village Ghumrapader, Tahsil And P.S. Amlipader, District Gariyabandh (C.G.) ... Applicant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Station House Officer (S.H.O) P.S. - Amlipadar District - Gariyabandh (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Ms. Swati Rani Saraf, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Karan Kumar Baharani, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board 28/01/2026 1. The accused/applicant has moved this first bail application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023, for releasing him on regular bail during trial in connection with Crime No.109/2025 registered at Police Station – Amlipadar, District – Gariyabandh (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 137(2), 87, 64(2)(m) 65(1) of BNS, Sections 4, 6 of of POCSO Act, 2012 and Section 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Digitally signed by RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Date: 2026.02.06 11:26:04 +0530 2 2. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that the victim's father filed a missing person report at Amilipadar Police Station on October 7, 2025, stating that on 03.10. 2025, his minor daughter, aged 15 years, 5 months, and 9 days, had gone to watch an Odia dance performance in Ghubharapadar village with other family members. In the intervening night, when they were returning home at 2:00 AM, the other family members asked her to come home, but she replied that she would return in the morning after watching the Odia dance. Later, at 5:00 AM, when the complainant did not find his daughter/victim at home, he searched for his minor daughter/victim at the Odia dance venue and also inquired with relatives in the neighborhood, but she could not be found. Therefore, he suspected that the applicant had kidnapped his minor daughter, and a missing person report has been registered. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The allegations upon the applicant are motivated by personal vendettas between the applicant's family and the victim's family, and no credible evidence supports the charges. Further, the age of the victim has been inaccurately represented in the present case. The victim is, in fact, an adult, being over the age of 18 years. The applicant is a young man of merely 20 years of age with no previous criminal record, whose widow/ailing mother and family are dependent upon him for their sustenance. The applicant has been in jail since 07.10.2025, there is no likelihood of his case being 3 decided in the near future, therefore, the present applicant may be released on bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposed the bail application, submitting that the date of birth of victim is 28.04.2010 i.e. she is minor on the date of incident. Further, in the instant case, till date the trial yet not commenced, therefore, at this stage, the applicant may not be released on bail. 5. The victim along with her father appeared through VC from the concerned DLSA and both of them have raised objection in granting bail to the applicant. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, particularly looking to the material available on record and the evidence against the applicant, further considering the fact that trial not yet commenced, at this stage, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail. 8. Accordingly, the bail application filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 is rejected. 9. Office is directed to sent a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Ravi Mandavi