Dismissed¶22

Birendra Markam v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC16 Apr 2026MCRC/3111/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur, MCRC No. 3111 of 2026, decided 17.04.2026 by Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal: first regular bail application under Section 483 BNSS rejected in Crime No. 28/2025 (Police Station Sihawa, District Dhamtari) for offences under Sections 137(2), 87, 65(1) of BNS and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012; minor victim allegedly taken from parental custody on 12.04.2025 and recovered from the applicant in Tamil Nadu on 01.05.2025; applicant in custody since 04.05.2025; victim objected via video conference from DLSA; trial Court directed to expedite trial.

What did the court decide?

Regular bail refused; no relief granted to the applicant, save a direction to the trial Court to conclude the trial as early as possible. ¶22

Birendra Markam Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

Digitally signed by ALLENA ALLENA ANNAJEE ANNAJEE RAO RAO Date: 2026.04.20 11:45:55 +0530

¶3

2026:CGHC:17626

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

MCRC No. 3111 of 2026

¶7

Birendra Markam S/o Late Bidesh Markam Aged About 22 Years R/o Sambalpur, Police Station Kundai, District- Navrangpur, (Odisha) (Description mentioned as per charge sheet) ... Applicant

¶8

versus

¶9

State of Chhattisgarh through- the Station House Officer, Police Of Police Station Sihawa, District- Dhamtari (CG) ... Respondent

¶10

For the applicant : Mr. Gunja Taram, Advocate, on behalf of Mr. Anil Gulati, Advocate

¶11

For the State : Mr. Aman Tamrakar & Mr. Siddhant Tiwari, PLs

¶12

(Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal)

¶13

Order on Board

¶14

17.04.2026

¶15

1. This is first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant in Crime No. 28/2025 registered at Police Station Sihawa, District Dhamtari .. (CG) for the offences under Sections 137(2), 87, 65(1) of BNS and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

¶16

2 As per the prosecution case, on 12.04.2025 complainant had lodged the report alleging that his minor daughter was taken away by the present applicant from the lawful custody of her parents, on which, missing person’s case was registered and during investigation, the victim was

¶17

¶18

recovered on 01.05.2025 from the possession of the applicant in Tamilnadu.

¶19

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that from court statement of victim, it is clear that there was love affairs between the victim and applicant; she had voluntarily accompanied the applicant and visited different places with him and both they have resided together as wife and husband for a considerable period, therefore, she was a consenting party. Though the victim is shown to be minor, yet the evidence of her correct age has not been proved by the prosecution. He submits that the applicant is in jail since 04.05.2025; till date out of total 13 witnesses, only 7 have been examined and there is no immediate possibility of disposal of the case, therefore, looking to his long custody, the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶20

4. Per contra, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application and submits that at the time of incident, the victim was minor aged about 1314 years and in her court statement she has supported the case of prosecution. The trial is in progress.

¶21

5. The victim along with her father has appeared through VC from the concerned DLSA and raised objection in granting bail.

¶22

6. Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and the over-all facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to release the applicant on regular bail. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected.

¶23

7. However, looking to the long custody period of the applicant, the trial Court is directed to conclude the trial as early as possible.

¶24

8. A copy of this order be sent to the trial Court for necessary information.

¶25

Sd/-

¶26

(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge

¶27

Rao

Birendra Markam v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Birendra Markam v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ku. Rani Alias Thageshwari Verma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

P. Gurushekhran Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rcs Lorry Services Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dashmet Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Pokhraj Sinha Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Roshan Gupta Vs State of Chhattisgarh