MCRC/8110/2026 of UMER SINGH Vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH on 13 October 2026

1. Victim along with her mother appeared through virtual mode and has given her consent in grant of bail to the applicant.

2. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 84/2025 registered at Police Station Chalgali, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 65(1), 62(2)(m), 89, 351(3) of BNS and Sections 4 (2), 5(j)(ii) and 6 of POCSO Act.

3. As per the case of the prosecution, on 13.11.2025, father of the victim lodged a complaint alleging that the applicant, on the pretext of marriage and by extending threats to kill, repeatedly established forcible physical relations with his daughter, resultantly, she became pregnant. On such complaint, police registered aforesaid offence against the applicant.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant would contend that false allegations have been made against the present applicant. He would further submit that victim has already been examined before the trial Court and she disclosed her age 21 years. It is also argued that victim, her father and mother have not supported the case of prosecution before the learned Trial Court and denied the suggestions put forth by the Public Prosecutor. He would submit that applicant is in jail since 14.11.2025 and trial may take some time for its conclusion. He would contend that applicant has no criminal antecedent. Thus, he would pray for grant of bail to the applicant.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would oppose the bail application. Ms. Monika Thakur, Panel Lawyer would submit that age of the victim on the date of incident was 12 years 03 months, thus, she was below 18 years of age and was not capable to give her consent. She would further submit that in statement recorded under Section 183 of BNSS, victim has made serious allegations against the applicant with regard to sexual assault, therefore, the present application deserves to be rejected.

6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary.

7. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the allegations levelled against the present applicant, the fact that the victim has already been examined before the trial Court and she has not supported the case of prosecution and she disclosed her age 21 years, even she denied the suggestion put forth by Public Prosecutor. Likewise, parents of the victim, who have examined as PW/2 and PW/3 before the Court below have not supported the case of prosecution. Further taking note that applicant is in jail since 14.11.2025, trial may take some time for its conclusion and applicant has no criminal antecedent, therefore, I am inclined to allow this application.

8. Accordingly, the regular bail application is allowed and it is directed that in the event of the applicant executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court, he shall be released on bail on the following conditions:-

(i) he shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such fact to the Court;

(ii) he shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial, &

(iii) he shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to him by the said Court till disposal of the trial. Sd/-

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE $iddhant