1 2026:CGHC:13871 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 1829 of 2026 1 - Manjeet @ Maujiram Khute S/o Late Vijay Aged About 19 Years R/o Village Pauni P.S. Fasterpur, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, P.S. Lalpur, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant : Shri Jailal Yadav, Advocate. For State : Ms. Supriya Upasne, Govt. Advocate. Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J Order on Board 23.03.2026 1. Pursuant to the order dated 23.02.2026, the father of victim appeared through virtual mode from the concerned DLSA and raised objection in granting bail to the applicant. The submission is recorded. 2. This is first bail application seeking grant of bail to the Applicant who is in jail since 23.05.2025 in connection with Crime No.72/2025 registered at Police Station Lalpur, District Mungeli for the offence punishable under Sections 137(2), 87, 64(m) & 3(5) of BNS and Section 4&6 of POCSO Act. 3. As per prosecution case, on 29.04.2025 a missing report was lodged by the father of victim that his minor daughter is missing and her whereabouts could not be traced out. The police registered an offence under Section 137(2) of BNS and started investigation. During investigation, the co-accused left the victim to her parents house on 01.05.2025 and after recording her statement, the other offences were added. The applicant was arrested and charge sheet was filed. INDRAJEET SAHU Digitally signed by INDRAJEET SAHU Date: 2026.03.25 10:07:43 +0530 2 4. Learned Counsel for the applicant would submit that there is no cogent evidence with respect to age of victim. She was in love affair with the applicant and she herself eloped with the applicant and engaged in making consensual physical relationship with him. Therefore, the applicant may be released on bail as final adjudication may take sometime and other co-accused has already been granted bail by this court in MCrC No.7640 of 2025 on 28.10.2025. Further, till date only three witnesses have been examined out of 24 cited witnesses. 5. On the other hand the counsel for the State opposes the bail application and have submitted that from the material collected during investigation as per school record the age of victim is only 14 years and 3 months and she was kidnapped and subjected to sexual intercourse by the applicant and therefore he is not entitled for bail. Further, in 164 CrPC statement the victim alleged that the applicant kidnapped her and committed rape with her. 6. Without commenting on merits, considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, considering the evidence with respect to age of victim and that she was aged about 14 years and 3 months on the date of incident and she has stated about the incident in her 164 CrPC statement and also considering the fact that three witnesses have been examined out of 24 witnesses, this Court is of the opinion that present is not a fit case where the Applicant can be enlarged on bail. 7. Accordingly, the application for grant of bail is rejected. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge inder