Dismissed¶37

Sanjay Kumar Verma v. the State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC6 May 2026CRA/631/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail refusal upheld in child-trafficking/sexual-exploitation case; Chhattisgarh HC CRA 631/2026; appeal under S.21(4) NIA Act against Special Judge (NIA) Bilaspur order dated 19.02.2026 rejecting S.483 BNSS bail application; offences SS 363, 370(4), 370A, 376 IPC and S.6 POCSO; minor victim allegedly abducted and sold for Rs.35,000/-; victim named appellant from inception in SS 161/164 CrPC statements and deposition; parity with co-accused Vijay Paswan (CRA 2542/2025, bail 30.01.2026) rejected; trial advanced, only IO remaining; judgment per Ramesh Sinha, C.J., dated 07/05/2026.

What did the court decide?

None - appeal dismissed; the Special Judge's order refusing bail was upheld and the appellant remains in judicial custody. ¶37

Sanjay Kumar Verma Vs the State of… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None - appeal dismissed; the Special Judge's order refusing bail was upheld and the appellant remains in judicial custody.

¶37

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellant, charged under Sections 363, 370(4), 370A, 376 IPC and Section 6 POCSO Act in a child-trafficking case, is entitled to bail notwithstanding rejection of his Section 483 BNSS application by the Special Judge (NIA), Bilaspur. +1 more

¶22

Court's answer

Bail refused: the victim specifically named the appellant and attributed active participation to him in her Sections 161 and 164 CrPC statements and in her deposition; the allegations of trafficking and sexual exploitation of a minor girl are grave and serious, and the Court was not inclined to undertake a detailed appreciation of the investigation evidence at this stage.

¶34

Ratio / Principle

Ground of parity rejected: co-accused Vijay Paswan stood on a different footing because his name had not surfaced during investigation and appeared only subsequently during the victim's deposition before the trial Court, whereas the appellant was named by the victim from the inception itself.

¶34

Key takeaways

The learned trial Court rightly considered the gravity of the offence and surrounding circumstances; with the trial already in progress (only the Investigating Officer remaining to be examined), there was no ground to interfere with the impugned order of the Special Court, and the appeal was dismissed.ratio¶37

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur, CRA No. 631 of 2026 (order dated 07/05/2026), per Ramesh Sinha, C.J.; coram: Ramesh Sinha, C.J. and Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. Criminal appeal under Section 21(4), NIA Act, 2008 against order dated 19.02.2026 of the Special Judge (NIA), Bilaspur rejecting the appellant's bail application under Section 483, BNSS in Special Case (NIA) No.10 of 2025 arising out of Crime No.150/2024, P.S. Bilaigarh, for offences under Sections 363, 370(4), 370A, 376 IPC and Section 6, POCSO Act, 2012. Prosecution case: appellant with co-accused abducted a minor girl (missing since 24.04.2024) and sold her to co-accused Guru Prasad Verma in Uttar Pradesh for Rs.35,000/-; appellant arrested 04.07.2025; charges framed after charge-sheet. Held: bail refused - the victim named the appellant from inception in her Sections 161 and 164 CrPC statements and deposition, attributing active participation; trafficking and sexual exploitation of a minor girl are grave and serious; parity with co-accused Vijay Paswan (bail dated 30.01.2026 in CRA No.2542/2025) denied because Paswan's name surfaced only at the deposition stage; trial advanced with only the Investigating Officer left; no ground to interfere with the Special Court's order. Appeal dismissed.

¶1

¶2

2026:CGHC:21350-DB

¶3

Digitally signed by SAGRIKA SAGRIKA AGRAWAL AGRAWAL Date: 2026.05.08 18:14:52 +0530

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

CRA No. 631 of 2026

¶7

Sanjay Kumar Verma S/o Swaminath Verma Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Ratanpur P.S.- Laliya, District- Balrampur (Up)

¶8

... Appellant(s)

¶9

versus

¶10

The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Sho To P.S. Bilaigarh, DistrictSarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.)

¶11

... Respondent(s)

¶12

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Praveen Soni, Advocate.

¶13

For Respondent/State : Mr. N. K. Jaiswal, Dy. Govt. Advocate.

¶14

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge

¶15

Order on Board

¶16

Per Ramesh Sinha, C.J.

¶17

07/05/2026

¶18

This criminal appeal under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (for short, ‘NIA Act’) is directed against the impugned order dated 19.02.2026 passed by the Special Judge (NIA), Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) in connection with Special Case (NIA) No.10 of 2025 arising out of

¶19

¶20

Crime No.150/2024 registered at Police Station Bilaigarh, District Sarangarh–Bilaigarh, Chhattisgarh, whereby the application preferred by the appellant seeking bail for offences punishable under Sections 363, 370(4), 370A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short ‘POCSO Act’) has been rejected.

¶21

Brief facts of the case are that Crime No.150/2024 was registered at Police Station Bilaigarh, District Sarangarh–Bilaigarh (C.G.) for offences punishable under Sections 363, 370(4), 370A and 376 of the IPC along with Section 6 of the POCSO Act on the basis of a complaint lodged by the mother of the victim alleging that her daughter had gone missing on 24.04.2024 while proceeding towards the fields. As per the prosecution case and supplementary statement of the victim, the present appellant along with other co-accused persons allegedly abducted the victim and sold her to co-accused Guru Prasad Verma in the State of Uttar Pradesh for an amount of Rs.35,000/-. The appellant was arrested on 04.07.2025 and is in judicial custody since then.

¶22

The appellant has preferred an application under Section 483 of the BNSS, and the same was rejected by the learned Special Judge (NIA Act), Bilaspur vide order dated 19.02.2026 mainly on the ground of gravity of offence and possibility of absconding as the appellant is resident of District Balrampur, Uttar Pradesh. After

¶23

¶24

filing of charge-sheet, charges have been framed against the appellant under Sections 363, 370A, 370(4), 376 of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act.

¶25

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case and is in judicial custody since 04.07.2025. It is contended that there is an inordinate and unexplained delay of about one month in lodging the FIR, inasmuch as the alleged incident is stated to have occurred on 24.04.2024 whereas the FIR came to be registered on 20.05.2024, which creates serious doubt regarding the veracity of the prosecution case. It is further submitted that in the questionnaire prepared by the police at the time of lodging the report, the cause of leaving was mentioned as elopement, thereby indicating consensual conduct on the part of the victim. He further submits that despite allegedly travelling through public places and residential areas, the victim did not raise any alarm or seek assistance from any person. It is also argued that the investigation suffers from material infirmities, as neither any memorandum under Section 27 of the Evidence Act was recorded nor any test identification parade was conducted. He further submits that the deposition of PW-01, mother of the victim, wherein she admitted that she was deposing as per the instructions of the lawyer. It is further submitted that the age of the victim has not been duly established in accordance with law, as no birth certificate has

¶26

¶27

been brought on record and the school register relied upon by the prosecution does not bear signatures of any competent authority. Learned counsel submits that although the victim has named the present appellant in her deposition, similarly situated co-accused Vijay Paswan has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 30.01.2026 passed in CRA No.2542/2025.

¶28

Learned counsel further submits that almost all the material prosecution witnesses have already been examined and only the Investigating Officer remains to be examined. The matter is stated to be fixed before the learned trial Court on 21.05.2026. It is contended that there is no likelihood of the appellant influencing witnesses or tampering with the prosecution evidence at this stage. Learned counsel further submits that the appellant had never absconded prior to his arrest and merely being a resident of the State of Uttar Pradesh cannot be made a ground to deny the benefit of bail. Therefore, considering the period of incarceration undergone by the appellant and the stage of the trial, it is prayed that the appellant be enlarged on bail.

¶29

On the other hand, learned State counsel vehemently opposes the appeal and submits that the appellant is involved in serious offences punishable under Sections 363, 370(4), 370A and 376 of the IPC along with Section 6 of the POCSO Act and there is sufficient material available on record prima facie establishing his involvement in the alleged offence. It is submitted that the victim,

¶30

¶31

in her statements recorded under Sections 164 and 161 CrPC as well as in her deposition before the learned trial Court, has specifically named the present appellant and attributed active participation to him in the commission of the offence. Learned State counsel further submits that co-accused Vijay Paswan was granted bail by this Court on the ground that his name was not either in the statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. nor in the statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C of the victim, whereas the case of the present appellant stands on a different footing as his name was disclosed from the very inception during investigation itself. It is further submitted that the allegations pertain to trafficking and sexual exploitation of a minor girl and, therefore, considering the gravity and seriousness of the offence, the appellant is not entitled to the benefit of bail. Learned State counsel also submits that the learned Special Court has rightly rejected the bail application after due consideration of the material available on record and no interference is warranted in the impugned order. It is further submitted that the trial is at an advanced stage and only one prosecution witness, namely the Investigating Officer, remains to be examined. Considering the gravity of the offence, criminal antecedents of the appellant and the possibility of absconding or influencing witnesses, it is prayed that the present appeal being devoid of merit deserves to be dismissed.

¶32

¶33

We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto.

¶34

Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the present appellant. The victim, in her statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC as well as in her deposition before the learned trial Court, has specifically named the present appellant and attributed active participation to him in the alleged offence. The allegations against the appellant pertain to trafficking and sexual exploitation of a minor girl, which are grave and serious in nature. At this stage, this Court is not inclined to undertake a detailed appreciation of the evidence collected during investigation. So far as the ground of parity is concerned, this Court finds that the case of co-accused Vijay Paswan stands on a different footing, as his name had not surfaced during investigation and had appeared only subsequently during the deposition of the victim before the learned trial Court, whereas the present appellant was named by the victim from the inception itself. Therefore, the appellant cannot claim parity with the said co-accused.

¶35

The learned trial Court has rightly considered the gravity of the offence and other surrounding circumstances while rejecting the bail application. It is also pertinent to note that the trial is already in progress and only one prosecution witness remains to be

¶36

¶37

examined. Considering the seriousness of the allegations, the material available on record and the stage of the trial, this Court does not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned Special Court. Accordingly, the present appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed .

¶38

Sd/- Sd/-

¶39

(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice

¶40

Sagrika

Sanjay Kumar Verma v. the State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Kumar Verma v. the State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Xyz Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ankur Gauraha Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dilip Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sarju Kumar Sahu Vs Minor Vedanshi Patel

Veerchand Jain Vs Chairman

Xyz Vs State of Chhattisgarh