Allowed¶32

Rakesh Prajapati v. State of Chhattisgarh

Bail – Regular bail – Second application under S.483 BNSS, 2023

Chhattisgarh HC3 May 2026MCRC/3726/2026

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chhattisgarh HC (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal, J.) allows second regular bail application under S.483 BNSS 2023 in POCSO/BNS rape case (Crime No.103/2025, Ss.70(B), 74, 331(6) BNS; Ss.4 & 6 POCSO Act) without merit observations, citing Victim-B's admissions in cross-examination, 21-day FIR delay, custody since 31.07.2025 and slow trial (4/13 witnesses); bond Rs.25,000 with one surety; victim had objected via VC; first bail rejected 28.02.2026 in MCRC No.1584/2026.

What did the court decide?

Release on regular bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court. ¶32

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Release on regular bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

¶32

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant, arraigned in Crime No. 103/2025 (P.S. Raghunathnagar) for offences under Sections 70(B), 74, 331(6) of the BNS and Sections 4 & 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012, should be released on regular bail in this second bail application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, considering the victim's court statements, the delay in FIR and the period of custody/progress of trial.

¶15

Court's answer

Without observing anything on the merits of the case, and having considered the submissions of counsel, the overall facts and circumstances, the court statement of Victim-B and the changing circumstances after rejection of the first bail application, the Court was inclined to release the applicant on regular bail.

¶31

Ratio / Principle

The second bail application is allowed and the applicant is directed to be released on bail on furnishing a bond of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the said Court as and when directed.

¶32

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail – Regular bail – Second application under S.483 BNSS, 2023 – Offences under Ss.70(B), 74, 331(6) BNS and Ss.4 & 6 POCSO Act, 2012 (Crime No.103/2025, P.S. Raghunathnagar) – Allegation of rape on minor girl (Victim-B, aged about 15-16) and molestation of her sister-in-law (Victim-A) by applicant and co-accused – First bail application rejected on 28.02.2026 – Defence relied on Victim-B's court statement admitting nothing was committed in the bath room, her uncertainty about her age/adulthood, and that she went out quietly with the accused; 21-day delay in FIR; applicant in custody since 31.07.2025 with only 4 of 13 witnesses examined – Victim-B appeared through VC from DLSA and objected to bail – Held, without observing anything on merits and noting the changed circumstances after rejection of the first bail application, second bail application allowed; applicant to be released on bond of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like sum.

¶1

¶2

Digitally signed by ALLENA ALLENA ANNAJEE ANNAJEE RAO RAO Date: 2026.05.05 10:36:46 +0530

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

MCRC No. 3726 of 2026

¶6

Rakesh Prajapati S/o Vishwanath Prajapati, Aged About 22 Years R/o Navadih. Police Station Dudadhi, District- Sonbhadra (Uttar Pradesh)

¶7

... Petitioner

¶8

versus

¶9

State of Chhattisgarh through Chowki, Balangi, Police Station Raghunathnagar District- Balrampur- Ramanujganj (C.G.)

¶10

... Respondent

¶11

For the applicant : Mr. Hemant Kesharwani, Advocate For the State : Mr. Raj Kumar Sahu, Panel Lawyer

¶12

(Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal)

¶13

Order on Board

¶14

04.05.2026

¶15

1. This is second bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant in Crime No. 103/2025 registered at Police Station Raghunathnagar, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj (CG) for the offences under Sections 70(B), 74, 331(6) of the BNS and Section 4 & 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012.

¶16

2. The first bail application has been rejected by order dated 28.02.2026 passed in MCRC No. 1584/2026.

¶17

¶18

3. As per the prosecution case, there are two complainant-victims and two accused in this case. Victim-A is major lady and Victim-B is minor girl aged about 15-16 years. Victim-A who is sister in law (Bhabhi) of Victim-B lodged a report alleging that on 08.7.2025 she and Victim-B were sleeping in their room, her husband had gone to the plant for work and her parentsin-law were also sleeping. At about 12 O’ clock in the night, the applicant along with co-accused Dinesh Kumar entered the house. Co-accused Dinesh Singh began to molest her by holding her arm. When she began to shout, co-accused Dinesh gagged her mouth while the present applicant was forcibly taking away the minor girl victim-B out of the house. When the complainant (victim-A) resisted the said act, applicant did not listen and took the minor girl (Victim-B) towards the bath room. After sometime, victim-B came and told her while crying that present applicant Rakesh Prajapati had committed rape on her. On that report, offence has been registered against the applicant and co-accused.

¶19

4(i). Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in cross examination

¶20

Para 18 of the court statement of minor victim-B, she categorically admits that on the date of incident, nothing was committed by the applicant with her in the bath room. Further at para 21, Victim-B states that she was not certain about her present age to be 15 years and at Para 22, she further admits the fact that she was major (adult). Learned counsel submits that no evidence of her correct age has been collected by the prosecution to prove that she was minor.

¶21

(ii) He further refers to para 26 wherein the witness (Victim-B) admits that the accused were called to the house by her cousin to sit and resolve the dispute of previous money transaction and when the accused did not turn up, her cousin and Bhabhi (Victim-A) had gone to Police Station to lodge the complaint. At para 31, on being asked about the mode of rape, the

¶22

¶23

witness (Victim-B) has replied that she does not understand the meaning of ‘rape’.

¶24

(iii) Referring to para 35 he further submits that victim-B clearly admits that when the accused came to their house she and her Bhabhi (Victim-A) went out quietly with the accused without raising any alarm and it was her mistake that she did not inform the family members at that time and went out quietly with the accused along with her sister in law (victim-A).

¶25

(iv) At para 36, she further admits that when she and sister in law (Victim-A) went out in the rain with the accused, Victim-A was engrossed in her time with co-accused Dinesh and was not paying attention to the witness. Learned counsel submits that in view of such statements of Victim-B, it is apparently clear that vague allegations have been made to falsely implicate the applicant.

¶26

(v) He further submits that there is inordinate delay of 21 days in filing the FIR on 29.07.2025 whereas the incident is said to have taken place on 08.07.2025. Even the medical report does not support the prosecution case. The applicant is in jail since 31.07.2025; till date out of total 13 witnesses, only 4 have been examined and there is no immediate possibility of disposal of case, therefore, looking to the long custody of the applicant, he may be enlarged on bail.

¶27

5. Per contra, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application and submits that at the time of incident, the victim was minor, therefore, the bail should be rejected.

¶28

6. The Victim-B along with her mother has appeared through VC from the concerned DLSA and raised objection to grant bail to the applicant.

¶29

7. Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties; the over all facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the court statement of Victim-B as also the changing circumstances after

¶30

¶31

rejection of first bail, without observing anything on merits of the case, I am inclined to release the applicant on regular bail.

¶32

8. Accordingly, this second bail application is allowed and the applicant is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing a bond in sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the said Court as and when directed in that behalf.

¶33

Cc as per rules.

¶34

Sd/(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge

¶35

Rao

Rakesh Prajapati v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rakesh Prajapati 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

State Of Chhattisgarh Vs S.K.S. Sisodiya and others

Shri Ram General Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Praffulkumar Verma

Prafulla Kumar Verma Vs Shrichand Verma

Ganesh Ram Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Pintu Jangde Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Pintu @ Lokesh Patel @ Lokeshwar Patel Vs State of Chhattisgarh