1 2026:CGHC:17437 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 3172 of 2026 Ashish Jatwar S/o Jivan Jatwar Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Khamhariya, P.S. Jarhagaon, Distt. Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant. versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, P.S. Jarhagaon, Distt. Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent (Cause-title is taken from CIS) For Applicant : Mr. A. K. Matre, Advocate For Respondent/State : Ms. Binu Sharma, PL. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board 16.04.2026 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.180/2025 registered at Police Station – Jarhagaon, Distt. Mungeli, Chhattisgarh for the offence 2 punishable under Sections 137(2), 64(1)(2) and 87 of the BNS 2023 and Section 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act. 2. Case of the prosecution, in short, is that on 19.11.2025, grandfather of minor victim lodged report to the concerned Police Station mentioning therein that her minor granddaughter/victim (aged about 16 years and 9 months) went missing from the house. Based upon report, FIR was registered and during course of investigation, prosecutrix was recovered on 21.12.2025 from the possession of the present applicant. Her statement was recorded and, based upon which, crime was registered against the applicant for the aforementioned offence. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The prosecutrix allegedly went missing on the night of 19.11.2025 and was recovered after a period of more than one month, i.e., on 21.12.2025. During the said period, the prosecutrix is alleged to have travelled with the applicant to various places without raising any alarm or lodging any complaint. The prosecutrix and the applicant lived together for more than one month and the attendant circumstances strongly indicate that the prosecutrix was a consenting party who accompanied the applicant of her own free will and that no force or coercion was used. In her statement/evidence, victim has not made any allegation regarding forceful sexual intercourse against the applicant. Medical report of victim has not supported the case of prosecution. The applicant has 3 no previous criminal antecedents and is in judicial custody since 22.12.2025. Out of 19 prosecution witnesses, only one witness, namely the prosecutrix, has been examined before the Trial Court till date, therefore, the trial is likely to take a considerable time for its final adjudication and, hence, the applicant may be released on bail. 4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposes the bail application, submitting that victim is minor on the date of alleged incident and she has been examined before the trial Court as PW-1 and in her evidence she stated that applicant has committed forceful sexual intercourse with her on the pretext of marriage, hence, he is not entitled for grant of bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Pursuant to order of this Court, victim alongwith her father present before this Court and raised objection in granting bail to the applicant. 7. Considering facts of the case, nature of allegations, submission of learned counsel for the parties, particularly the fact that victim has been recovered from the possession of the applicant, further considering the Court evidence of the victim, in which, she made specific allegation regarding forceful sexual intercourse with her by the applicant, I am not inclined to allow this bail application. 8. Accordingly, the application filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 is rejected. 4 9. Office is directed to sent a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. CC as per rules. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge J.