1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 3678 of 2026 Deepak Budula S/o Parmeshwar Budula Aged About 22 Years R/o Bhimjor, Police Station Laikera, District Jharsuguda (Odisa) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Mahila Thana Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) ... Respondent (Cause title is taken from CIS) For Applicant : Mr. Ashish Gupta, Adv. For Respondent/State : Mr. Suresh Tandan, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order On Board 29/04/2026 1. The victim along with her father appeared virtually and recorded no 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. 3/2025, registered at Police Station – Mahila Thana, Raigarh, District- Raigarh (C.G.) for offence punishable under Sections 64(2)(m), 64(2) of BNS and Section 5 (J)(ii)(L) under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012. 3. In this case there are total 3 accused persons in which 1 is Juvenile. As per the prosecution case, on 27.05.2023, the applicant induced the minor victim and committed sexual intercourse with her more than once due to which she became pregnant. Based on above, offence has been registered against the applicant and he was arrested on 06.04.2025. 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 love affair between the applicant and the victim, and she was a SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Digitally signed by SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Date: 2026.04.29 16:10:59 +0530 2 consenting party. There is no conclusive evidence on record to show that, at the time of the incident, the victim was a minor. The victim also refused to undergo a DNA test. In the documents related to the newborn child, the name of Shiv Prasad Patnaik is mentioned everywhere as the father. The other co-accused Shiv Patnaik has already been granted bail by this Court. The applicant has been in jail since 06.04.2025. Out of a total of 16 prosecution witnesses, only 8 have been examined till date, and the trial is likely to take some time to conclude. Therefore, it is prayed that the applicant may be enlarged on bail. 5. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the bail application and submits that at the time of incident, the victim was minor, she became pregnant by the applicant and delivered a child on 19.01.2025. Out of a total of 16 prosecution witnesses, 8 have been examined till date and there is a possibility of the trial being completed early. Therefore, considering the nature and gravity of the offence, the applicant may not be released on 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, evidence collected by the prosecution, detention period of the applicant and the fact that other co-accused Shiv Patnaik has already been granted bail by this Court, the victim and her father appeared virtually today before this Court and recorded no objection. Further considering the Court statement of the victim and the fact that the trial is likely to take some time to be finalized, without further commenting on merits of the case, I am inclined to release the applicant on bail. 8. Accordingly, the bail application is Allowed. 9. It is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail on executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 20,000/- with one solvent surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for his appearance before the said Court as and when directed. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Shubham