Raju Gupta @ Laddu Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

Raju Gupta @ Laddu Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant (Raju Gupta @ Laddu), in this second bail application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, should be released on regular bail in Crime No. 12 of 2025 (P.S. Odgi, District Surajpur), given the dismissal on merits of his first bail application and the submissions of both sides.

Ratio / Principle

Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and the material on record, the Court found no changing circumstances after rejection of the first bail application and therefore declined to release the applicant on regular bail, rejecting the second bail application.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail - Second regular bail application - Rejected. By order dated 06.01.2026 in MCRC No. 10104 of 2025, the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur (Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) rejected the second bail application of Raju Gupta @ Laddu (aged about 29 years), filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking bail in Crime No. 12 of 2025, P.S. Odgi, District Surajpur (CG), for offences under Sections 61, 70(2), 87, 137(2), 3(5) of BNS and Sections 4 & 6 of the POCSO Act. The prosecution story alleges that on 13.04.2025 the applicant, along with co-accused Abrar Ansari, gave a lift to the prosecutrix (shown as a minor aged about 17 years per counsel's submission), took her towards Kudargarh fare and, near Baijnath chowk, committed forcible sexual intercourse with her; the victim's father lodged a written complaint on 15.04.2025. The applicant's first bail application had been dismissed on merits on 21.08.2025 in M.Cr.C. No. 6117 of 2025. Counsel for the applicant argued false implication, unproved age evidence, absence of any definite medical opinion on sexual intercourse, and custody since 18.04.2025; the State opposed, submitting that the victim had been examined before the trial Court and supported the prosecution case, and the victim, along with her father, objected to bail through video conferencing from the concerned DLSA. Finding no changing circumstances after rejection of the first bail, the Court declined to enlarge the applicant on regular bail and rejected the application.

1

Digitally signed by ALLENA ALLENA ANNAJEE ANNAJEE RAO RAO Date: 2026.01.07 13:50:54 +0530

2026:CGHC:750

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

MCRC No. 10104 of 2025

Raju Gupta @ Laddu S/o Late Dwarika Prasad Gupta Aged About 29 Years R/o Village- Navadih, Police Outpost- Trikunda, P.S. Ramanujganj, Dist.Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G). ... Applicant

versus

State of Chhattisgarh Surajpur C.G.	through the S.H.O. Police Station- .	Odgi, District .. Respondent
For the applicant	: Ms. Deblina Maity, Advocate
For Respondent	: Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Govt.	Advocate

(Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal)

Order on Board

06.01.2026

1. This is second bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of bail to the applicant in Crime No. 12 of 2025 registered at Police Station Odgi, District Surajpur (CG) for the offences under Sections 61, 70(2), 87, 137(2), 3(5) of BNS and Sections 4 & 6 of the POCSO Act. 2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 15.04.2025, father of the victim lodged a written complaint stating that on 13.04.2025 the victim was going to local market and for that she was standing near the road side. At that time, the applicant along with co-accused namely Abrar Ansari stopped the car and given lift to the victim. Thereafter, they took the victim to Kudargarh fare and while returning near Baijnath chowk the applicant and co-accused have

2

committed forcible sexual intercourse with her, thereby the offence has been committed.

3. The first bail application has been dismissed on merits by order dated 21.08.2025 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 6117 of 2025.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case and prosecutrix herself is indulged in roping the innocent persons in false cases. She further submits that although the prosecutrix is shown to be minor aged about 17 years, yet the evidence of correct age has not been proved. She also submits that even the medical report does not show any definite opinion about the sexual intercourse. She submits that the applicant is in jail since 18.04.2025 and there is no immediate possibility of disposal of case, therefore, he may be enlarged on bail, at this stage.

5. Per contra, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the victim has been examined before the trial Court and she has supported the prosecution case.

6. The victim along with her father has appeared through VC from the concerned DLSA and objected to bail.

7. Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and considering the material on record, I do not find any changing circumstances after rejection of the first bail. Hence, I am not inclined to release the applicant on regular bail. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected .

Sd/-

(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge

Rao