Chhattisgarh HC Grants Bail To Man Accused Of Sexually Assaulting Minor, Citing Unexplained 4–5-Year FIR Delay

The applicant sought regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, in connection with Crime No. 59/2026, registered for offences under Sections 137(2), 87, 5(L) and 64(2)(m) of the BNS and Section 6 of the POCSO Act.

The prosecution alleged that, between 20 March 2021 and 29 September 2025, the applicant sexually assaulted the victim on several occasions on a promise of marriage; the victim lodged the FIR after attaining majority.

The applicant asserted that the relationship was consensual, that they had lived together at various places, and that the victim had refused his offer of marriage.

He also relied on completion of the investigation, filing of the charge-sheet, his custody since 12 June 2026, absence of criminal antecedents, and the likely duration of the trial.

The State opposed bail, submitting that the victim was a minor at the time and that her consent was therefore irrelevant; the victim also objected to bail.

Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, was the statutory basis for the application for regular bail.

In deciding the application, the Court considered the circumstances of the alleged relationship, the delay in lodging the FIR, completion of the investigation and filing of the charge-sheet, the applicant’s period in custody, and his criminal antecedents.

The State argued that the victim’s consent was irrelevant because she was a minor at the time of the alleged incidents; the Court recorded that submission but did not set out or apply a separate legal test concerning consent.

No precedent was cited or applied in the order.

The Court considered the applicant’s and victim’s relationship and their stays at Ambikapur and Mumbai, the stated four-to-five-year delay in lodging the FIR without explanation, the filing of the charge-sheet, the applicant’s lack of criminal antecedents, and his custody since 12 June 2026.

On those circumstances, it found the case fit for regular bail.

Although the Court recorded the State’s submission that the victim was a minor and her consent was irrelevant, it did not separately analyse that submission or express any view on the merits.

Bail was subject to conditions prohibiting interference with persons acquainted with the case, conduct prejudicial to a fair and expeditious trial, and requiring attendance at every trial-court date.

The Court stated that its observations were limited to the bail application and that the trial Court must decide the case on its own merits.