Dismissed

Vijay Kumar Kurre v. the State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC17 Feb 2026MCRC/1267/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Second bail application under Section 483 BNSS by an accused arrested for rape of a 13-year-old under POCSO and BNS provisions; prosecution witnesses examined, prosecution's application to add accused pending. Bail rejected with a direction to conclude trial within four months.

What did the court decide?

Bail rejected; trial Court directed to expedite and conclude trial preferably within 4 months.

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

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 1267 of 2026

¶4

1 - Vijay Kumar Kurre S/o Shri Omprakash Kurre Aged About 25 Years R/o Village- Magarlod, Ward No. 11, Thana- Magarlod, Distt.- Dhamtari C.G.

¶5

... Applicant

¶6

versus

¶7

1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station- Magarlod, Distt.- Dhamtari C.G.

¶8

... Respondent

¶9

For Applicant : Mr. Sunil Sahu, Adv. For Respondent/State : Ms. Monika Day, P.L.

¶10

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal

¶11

Order On Board

¶12

18/02/2026

¶13

The applicant has preferred this Second bail application under Section 483 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita Act, 2023 for grant of regular bail as he is arrested in connection with Crime No.294/2024, registered at Police Station – Magarlod, District- Dhamtari (C.G.) for offence punishable under Sections 65(1), 332 of BNS, 2023 and Section 6 of POCSO Act.

¶14

The First bail application of the applicant was dismissed as withdrawn on 17.06.2025 in MCRC NO. 3239/2025.

¶15

HEERA LAL SAHU Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2026.02.19 10:13:38 +0530

¶16

¶17

As per the prosecution’s case, the victim was about 13 years old at the time of the incident and the FIR was not lodged by the parents of the victim but lodged on a memo dated 27.09.2024 sent by the Officer of Community Health Center Magarlod with regard to the abortion of the victim. Based on this, offence has been registered, and a statement of the victim and her parents was recorded, and the applicant was arrested on 19.10.2024 after completion of the investigation.

¶18

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the crime in question. He further submits that in the case, all the prosecution witnesses had been examined and the statement of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. had also been recorded, and at the stage of defence witnesses, the prosecution has filed an application under Section 358 of BNSS on 24.09.2025. Since then, the matter was fixed four times till 17.12.2025, but the notice to the proposed accused, namely Dr. Sharda Thakur, Dr. Amlendu Biswas and the parents of the victim has not been served. There is an unusual delay in the trial, and further delay in the trial cannot be ruled out. The applicant is in jail since 19.10.2024. Therefore, looking to the circumstances of the case, the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶19

Per contra, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the bail application and submits the applicant committed the heinous offence with a minor girl of 13 years old. There is sufficient material available on record against the present applicant; therefore, at this stage, looking to the gravity of the offence, the applicant may not be released on bail.

¶20

¶21

The victim and her father appeared through V.C. from the concerned DLSA and raised objection to grant of bail to the applicant.

¶22

I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶23

Considering the fact that the application under Section 358 of BNSS filed by the prosecution has not been accepted till date, there is not likely to delay in the trial. Further, considering the fact that the learned counsel for the applicant has not filed any copy of the court statement of any witness, the victim was aged about 13 years at that time, the application filed by the prosecution to add the four persons as an accused is under consideration and not accepted, and all the prosecution witnesses have been examined. Thus, considering all these facts and circumstances of the case, at this stage, without commenting on the merits of the case, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail. Accordingly, the bail application filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023, is rejected .

¶24

However, considering the fact that the applicant is in jail since 19.10.2024, the concerned trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and to ensure that the trial is concluded as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of 4 months.

¶25

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

¶26

Sd/-

¶27

(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge

¶28

H.L. Sahu

Vijay Kumar Kurre v. the State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Kumar Kurre v. the State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nawal Kishore Jaiswal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Jagdish Kaur Pairi Vs Dr. Lekh Ram Soni

Mohammad Irfan Akhtari Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Satish Kursunghe Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Vinay Kumar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Jaideep Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh