Dismissed¶27

Rakesh Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC19 Mar 2026MCRC/2107/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

MCRC No. 2107 of 2026, High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur (20.03.2026, Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal, J.): first regular bail application under Section 483 BNSS 2023 rejected. Crime No. 708/2025, PS Sirgitti, District Bilaspur; offences under Sections 74, 75(2), 79 BNS, Section 67 Information Technology Act, Sections 8 & 14 POCSO Act. Allegations: minor victim met via Instagram, non-consensual kissing video recorded near Mannadol railway tracks, blackmail for nude videos, public circulation of private video. Grounds urged: false implication, delay in FIR, no seized obscene material, incarceration since 27.12.2025; victim and father objected in person. Bail refused as trial not commenced.

What did the court decide?

Bail is refused at this stage because the trial has not commenced; the Court is not inclined to release the applicant on bail.

Rakesh Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

Digitally
BHOLA signed byBHOLANATH
NATH KHATAI
KHATAI Date:2026.03.23
10:47:45
+0530

¶3

2026:CGHC:13528

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

MCRC No. 2107 of 2026

¶7

Rakesh Sahu S/o Geetaram Sahu Aged About 18 Years R/o Koylari, Police Station- Mungeli, District- Mungeli (C.G.) (Wrongly Mentioned As Bilaspur)

¶8

... Applicant

¶9

versus

¶10

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

¶11

... Respondent

¶12

For Applicant : Mr. Kunwar Lal Sahu, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Akash Agrawal, P.L.

¶13

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal

¶14

Order On Board

¶15

20.03.2026

¶16

1. The victim and her father appeared in person before this Court today and objected in granting bail to the applicant.

¶17

2. This is the first bail application filed u/s 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No.708/2025 registered at Police Station Sirgitti, District- Bilaspur (CG) for the

¶18

¶19

offence punishable under Sections 74, 75(2), 79 of BNS, Section 67 of the Information Technology Act and Sections 8 & 14 of the POCSO Act.

¶20

3. As per the prosecution case, the victim’s father made a written report at Sirgitti Police Station stating that 09.12.2025, an acquaintance informed him about an obscene video of his minor daughter being circulated and showed him the footage. Upon questioning, the victim revealed that she had met the applicant through Instagram a year ago, after which they began communicating over the phone. On 20.03.2025, the applicant met her near the Mannadol railway tracks and recorded a video of them kissing without her consent. The applicant then allegedly used this footage to blackmail her, threatening to release it unless she sent him nude videos. Under fear of public exposure, the victim complied. However, once she stopped communicating with him, the applicant allegedly circulated the private video content publicly to defame her. Based on the written report, the applicant was arrested on 27.12.2025.

¶21

4. Learned counsel for applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He submits that the FIR was lodged with an inordinate and unexplained delay. No obscene videos or photos of the victim were seized from the applicant’s mobile phone nor is there any evidence of such content being circulated or made viral from his mobile. He further submits that the applicant is in jail since

¶22

¶23

27.12.2025 and there is no likelihood of the trial to be concluded at the earliest. Therefore, considering all these facts, the applicant may be released on bail.

¶24

5. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, opposing the bail application submits that the victim was minor at the time of incident and considering the nature of offence, the applicant does not deserve to be released on bail.

¶25

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.

¶26

7. Taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the fact that the trial has not commenced, this Court is not inclined to release the applicant on bail at this stage.

¶27

8. Accordingly, the present bail application stands rejected .

¶28

9. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information.

¶29

Sd/- ( Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal)

¶30

Khatai JUDGE

Rakesh Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rakesh Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhuneshwar Prasad Banjare Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Bhuneshwar Prasad Banjare Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ghanshyam Ambade Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Yogendra Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sushil Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Bhaiyya Ram Sinha