1 2026:CGHC:3445 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 10351 of 2025 Ashok Kenvat S/o Mokhram Kenvat Aged About 24 Years R/o Mahima Nagar, Near Sardar Santosh Singh Memorial School, Sirgitti, Police Station Sirgitti, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Sirgitti, District Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Ms. Aftabun Nisha, Adv. For Respondent/State : Mr. Aman Tamrakar, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order On Board 20/01/2026 1. The victim along with her mother appeared before this Court today and recorded ‘objection’ in granting bail to the applicant. 2. The applicant has preferred this 1st bail application under Section 483 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita Act 2023 for grant of regular bail as he is arrested in connection with crime No. 119/2025, registered at Police Station – Sirgitti, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) for offence punishable under Sections 64 (2)(m) 65(2), 115(2), 296 of BNSS and Section 5(l) (m)/6 of the POCSO Act. 3. As per prosecution's case, the allegation against the present applicant is that on 12.03.2025, he abused the victim with filthy language and committed forceful sexual intercourse with her more than once. On the SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Digitally signed by SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Date: 2026.01.21 18:02:43 +0530 2 date of incident, the victim was aged about 09 years 5 months and 17. Based on above, offence has been registered against the applicant and he was arrested on 14.03.2025. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the crime in question. There was a delay of 24 hours in lodging the FIR. She further submits that the applicant and the victim are neighbors and there was a dispute took place between them, therefore, a false report has been lodged by the victim against the applicant. The applicant is in jail since 14.03.2025 and the trial is likely to take some time to be finalized, therefore, it is prayed that the applicant may be enlarged on bail. 5. On the other hand, the State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that at the time of incident, the victim was minor. The medical evidence also supported the case of prosecution, therefore, looking to the nature of offence, the applicant may not be granted benefit of bail. 6. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence collected by the prosecution against the applicant, without commenting on merits of the case, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail. 8. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected. However, looking to the detention period of the applicant, the Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and to ensure that the trial is concluded as early as possible preferably within a period of 4 months from today. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Shubham