YOGENDRA DAS MANIKPURI vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

CGHC010370582026 2026:CGHC:46039
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No. 9123 of 2026
1 - Yogendra Das Manikpuri S/o Laleshwar Das Manikpuri Aged About
18 Years R/o Village Litiya Police Outpost Sukuldaihan P. S. Lalbagh,
District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh.
… Applicant
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Station House Officer, Police
Station Lalbagh District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh.
... Non-applicant
For Applicant : Mr. Dinesh Yadav holding the brief of
Mr. Aditya Bhardwaj, Advocates
For Non-applicant
: Ms. Ritika Verma, P.L.
/State
Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
Order on Board
30/10/2026
1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section
483 of the BNSS, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been
arrested in connection with Crime No. 214/2026, registered at

2
Police Station Lalbagh, District – Rajnandgaon (C.G.) for offence
punishable under Section64(2)(H) of BNS and Section 6 of POCSO
Act.
2. As per the case of the prosecution, the present applicant sexually
exploited the minor victim as a result of which, she conceived and
thereby, the applicant committed the aforesaid offence.
3. Mr. Dinesh Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant, would argue
that on the date of the incident, the age of the victim was 17 years
and 3 months and victim has given her consent for grant of bail to
the applicant. He would also submit that victim and her father have
already been examined before the trial Court and they have not
supported the case of the prosecution. He would further submit that
the investigation has been completed and charge-sheet has
already been filed and the applicant is in jail since 24/05/2026, thus,
the appellant be released on bail as conclusion of trial is likely to
take some time.
4. On the other hand, Ms. Ritika Verma, learned counsel appearing for
the non-applicant/State, would oppose the bail application and
submit that at the time of the incident, the victim was aged about 17
years and 3 months and therefore, the contention of consent of the
victim would be irrelevant as she was a minor. She would lastly
submit that serious allegations have been levelled against the
applicant with regard to sexual assault of the minor victim,
therefore, he is not liable to be released on bail.

3
5. The victim along with her father appeared before this Court through
video conferencing from the concerned District Legal Services
Authority (DLSA) and gave her consent for grant of bail to the
applicant.
6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused
the case diary as well as the material available on record.
7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case,
particularly that the investigation is complete and charge-sheet has
already been submitted; the applicant is in custody since
245/05/2026; the victim has given her consent for grant of bail to
the applicant and further considering that victim has been examined
before the trial Court and she has not supported the case of the
prosecution, this Court, without expressing any opinion on the
merits of the case, is of the considered view that a fit case for grant
of regular bail is made out. Accordingly, the bail application filed by
the applicant is allowed .
8. 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 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

4
and expeditious trial, and
(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.
9. The observation made herein-above is for the purpose of deciding
this bail application only, the trial Court shall decide the case on its
own merits.
Sd/-
(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)
JUDGE
Harneet