Poshan Lal Banjare Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

Poshan Lal Banjare Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Regular bail refused; however, the Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude it preferably within 5 months from receipt of a copy of the order.

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant, arrested in Crime No. 07/2025 of PS Ghumka, Rajnandgaon for offences punishable under Sections 137(2), 87, 64(1), 64(2)(i), 64(2)(m), 3(5) of BNS and Sections 4, 5(L), 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012, should be enlarged on regular bail under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita Act 2023.

Court's answer

Considering the facts of the case and the prosecution evidence against the applicant, and without commenting on the merits of the case, the Court was not inclined to release the applicant on bail.

Ratio / Principle

In view of the applicant's detention period, the concerned Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and ensure its conclusion as early as possible, preferably within five months from receipt of a copy of the order.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

MCRC No. 163 of 2026 (High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur; Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal; order dated 11/02/2026): First regular bail application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita Act 2023 by Poshan Lal Banjare (aged about 19 years), arrested on 01.03.2025 in Crime No. 07/2025 of PS Ghumka, Rajnandgaon, for offences punishable under Sections 137(2), 87, 64(1), 64(2)(i), 64(2)(m), 3(5) of BNS and Sections 4, 5(L), 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012, arising out of the alleged inducement of a minor victim and commission of forcible sexual intercourse at Gujarat on 21.01.2025. The victim and her father appeared virtually and recorded their objection to bail. Counsel for the applicant urged innocence, a consensual love relationship, and slow trial progress (only 3 of 27 prosecution witnesses examined); the State opposed bail on the ground that the victim was a minor at the time of the incident. Considering the facts and prosecution evidence, without commenting on merits, the Court declined bail and rejected the application; noting the detention period, it directed the Trial Court to expedite the trial and conclude it preferably within 5 months from receipt of a copy of the order.

1

	Digitally signed by SHUBHAM
SHUBHAM	SINGH
SINGH	RAGHUVANSHI
RAGHUVANSHI	Date: 2026.02.12 16:52:35 +0530

2026:CGHC:7623

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

MCRC No. 163 of 2026

Poshan Lal Banjare S/o Manohar Lal Banjare Aged About 19 Years R/o Mohlai, P.S. Pulgaon, District- Durg Chhattisgarh.

... Applicant

versus

State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Station House Officer, Police StationGhumka, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.)

... Respondent (Cause-title is taken from CIS) For Applicant : Mr. Amit Singh Chouhan, Adv. For Respondent/State : Mr. Siddhant Tiwari, P.L.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal

Order On Board

11/02/2026

The victim along with 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. 07/2025, registered at Police Station – Ghumka, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) for offence punishable under Sections 137(2), 87, 64(1), 64(2)(i), 64 (2)(m), 3(5) of BNS and Sections 4, 5(L), 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012.

2

The prosecution's case, in short, is that on 21.01.2025, the applicant induced the minor victim and taken her with him to Gujarat, kept her there and forcibly committed sexual intercourse with her. Based on above, offence has been registered against the applicant and he was arrested on 01.03.2025.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the crime in question. There was a love relationship between them. The victim was a consenting party and she herself went to the applicant on her own free will. He further submits that the applicant is in jail since 01.03.2025, out of 27 prosecution witnesses, only 3 have been examined till date and the trial is likely to take some more 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, 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 case's facts and prosecution evidence 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 concerned Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and to ensure that the trial is concluded as early as possible preferably within a period of 5 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

Sd/-

(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge

Shubham