Rinku Urf Narendra Kumar Sarvansh Vs… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

Rinku Urf Narendra Kumar Sarvansh Vs… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No bail relief; bail application rejected. Trial Court directed to expedite the trial and conclude it as early as possible, considering the applicant's detention period.

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant, arrested in connection with Crime No. 296/2025 (P.S. Urga, District Korba) for offences under Sections 69, 65(1), 64(2)(m), 64(2)(f) of BNS and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012, should be granted regular bail under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita Act 2023.

Court's answer

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence collected by the prosecution against the applicant, and without commenting on the merits, the Court was not inclined to release the applicant on bail; the first regular bail application stands rejected.

Ratio / Principle

In view of the applicant's detention period, the trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and to ensure that the trial is concluded as early as possible.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Chhattisgarh High Court at Bilaspur, MCRC No. 139 of 2026, Order on Board 10/02/2026 (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal, J.) — Regular bail rejected. Applicant Rinku Urf Narendra Kumar Sarvansh, aged about 25, in custody since 11.08.2025 in Crime No. 296/2025 of P.S. Urga, District Korba, charged under Sections 69, 65(1), 64(2)(m) and 64(2)(f) of BNS and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012, for allegedly inducing a minor victim and committing sexual intercourse with her more than once from 13.04.2025 onwards when she was not of the age of consent. Filed as his first bail application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita Act 2023. The victim and her father appeared virtually and recorded their objection to grant of bail; the victim, a minor at the time of the incident, had supported the prosecution case in her statement recorded before the Trial Court. Counsel for the applicant pleaded innocence, submitted that the medical evidence did not support the prosecution case, and noted detention since 11.08.2025 with only 5 of 15 prosecution witnesses examined; the State opposed release citing the nature of the offence. The Court, without commenting on the merits, stated it was 'not inclined to release the applicant on bail' and rejected the application, while directing the trial Court, in view of the detention period, to expedite the trial and conclude it as early as possible. NAFR.

1

Digitally signed SHUBHAMSINGH by SHUBHAMSINGHRAGHUVANSHI RAGHUVANSHI Date: 2026.02.11 15:50:01 +0530

2026:CGHC:7361

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

MCRC No. 139 of 2026

Rinku Urf Narendra Kumar Sarvansh S/o Ram Ratan Sarvansh Aged About 25 Years R/o Khaira Daganiya, P.S. Sipat, District Bilaspur, C.G. Current Address - Kanberi, P.S. Urga, District Korba, C.G.

... Applicant

versus

State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, P.S. Urga, District Korba (C.G.)

... Respondent

(Cause-title is taken from CIS)

For Applicant : Mr. Suresh Ku. Verma, Adv. For Respondent/State : Mr. KK Bahrani, P.L.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal

Order On Board

10/02/2026

The victim and her father appeared virtually and recorded ‘objection’ in granting bail to the Applicant.

The applicant has preferred this 1^st 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. 296/2025, registered at Police Station – Urga, District- Korba (C.G.) for offence punishable under Sections 69, 65(1), 64(2)(m), 64(2)(f) of BNS and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012.

The prosecution's case, in short, is that on 13.04.2025, the applicant induced the minor victim and alleged to have committed sexual

2

intercourse with her more than once when she was not in the age consent. Based on above, offence has been registered against the applicant and he was arrested on 11.08.2025.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the crime in question. The medical evidence have not supported the case of prosecution. He further submits that the applicant is in jail since 11.08.2025, out of 15 prosecution witnesses only 5 have been examined till date and the trial is likely to take some time to be finalized, therefore, it is prayed that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

Per contra, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the bail application and submits that at the time of incident, the victim was minor, her statement was recorded before the Trial Court and she supported the case of prosecution, therefore, looking to the nature of offence, the applicant may not be released on bail.

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

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, evidence collected by the prosecution against the applicant, without commenting on merits of the case, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail.

Accordingly, the bail application is rejected .

However, looking to the detention period of the applicant, the trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and to ensure that the trial is concluded as early as possible.

Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge

Shubham