Duryodhan Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

Duryodhan Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

1

2026:CGHC:6541

Digitally signed by SOURABH SOURABH PATEL PATEL Date: 2026.02.05 16:45:33 +0530

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

MCRC No. 776 of 2026

1 - Duryodhan Yadav S/o Akal Singh Yadav, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Village- Sarnabahal, Police Station- Amlipadar, DistrictGariyaband (C.G.).

... Applicant

versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station- Devbhog, District- Gariyaband (C.G.).

... Respondent

For Applicant : Mr. Shivendu Pandya, Advocate. For State/Respondent : Ms. Vithika Choubey, P.L.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal

Order on Board

05/02/2026

1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 256/2025 registered at Police Station - Devbhog, District-Gariyaband (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 64(2)(n), 87 & 137(2) of BNS, 2023 and Section 4, 6 of POCSO Act.

2. The prosecution's case, in short, is that on 14.09.2025, the father of the victim lodged a report against unknown person

2

before Police Station Devbhog, District-Gariyaband (C.G.) that on 12.09.2025, the victim aged about 17 years 03, went to Higher Secondary School, Jhakharpara (C.G.) but she did not return back to her house. During investigation, the victim was recovered from the possession of present applicant, leading to the registration of an aforesaid offence against the applicant, who was subsequently arrested.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case with no connection to the alleged offence. He further submits that the victim voluntarily accompanied the applicant and was a consenting party, therefore, no offence is made out against the appellant. He next submits that the victim has been examined and has not stated anything against the applicant. The applicant has no criminal antecedents and has been in jail since 12.10.2025 and the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude, therefore, the present applicant may be released on bail.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposed the bail application, submitting that at the time of the incident, the victim was a minor. Out of a total of 23 witnesses, only victim has been examined till date, therefore, at this stage, the applicant should not be released on bail.

5. The victim along with her mother appeared virtually from the concerned DLSA and recorded ‘no objection’ in granting bail to the applicant.

3

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

7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the offence, and on perusal of the court statement of the victim and the fact that the applicant has been in jail since 12.10.2025, out of 23 witnesses, only 01 has been examined till date, and the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude, therefore, I find it appropriate to release the applicant on bail.

8. Accordingly, the application is allowed and the applicant is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the said Court as and when directed in that behalf.

9. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance

forthwith. Sd/-

(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge

Sourabh P.