Allowed

Durgesh Mandavi v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC10 Sept 2026MCRC/4130/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh granted regular bail to the applicant charged under POCSO and BNS. The Court observed that the victim turned hostile, expressed no objection to bail, and no injuries were found, concluding the applicant deserves release after serving significant custody.

What did the court decide?

Released on regular bail by furnishing a personal bond with two sureties.

Durgesh Mandavi Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

CGHC010176492026 2026:CGHC:39923

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

MCRC No. 4130 of 2026

¶6

Durgesh Mandavi S/o Rajendra @ Rajinder Mandavi Aged About 23 Years R/o Village Uraidabri P.S. Chichola, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.)

¶7

... Applicant

¶8

versus

¶9

State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station - Chura, Distt.- Gariyaband (C.G.)

¶10

	... Non-applicant
For Applicant	: Mr. Anmol Gupta, Advocate.
For Non-applicant/State	: Mr. Aman Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer.

¶11

Hon’ble Mr. Rakesh Mohan Pandey, Judge

¶12

Order on Board

¶13

Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK SHRIVAS SHRIVAS Date: 2026.09.11 18:35:15 +0530

¶14

11.09.2026

¶15

1. This is the First bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 176/2025 registered at Police Station : Chura, District – Gariyaband (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 137(2), 65(1) and 87 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for Short POCSO Act).

¶16

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 15.11.2025, the complainant, i.e., the mother of the victim, lodged an FIR stating that on 08.11.2025, at about 8:00 AM, her daughter (the victim) took her bag and left the house,

¶17

¶18

stating that she was going to attend a dance programme and would return within two days. However, even after the lapse of two days, she did not return home. The complainant and her family made extensive efforts to trace her by making inquiries in the village, nearby villages, and among their relatives and acquaintances, but no information regarding her whereabouts could be ascertained. Upon developing a strong suspicion that the victim had been enticed, lured, or kidnapped by some unknown person, the complainant lodged the present FIR.

¶19

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He submits that there is no mention of the applicant’s name in the FIR, nor is there any direct, independent, or reliable evidence/witness against the applicant. The applicant has been implicated in the alleged offence solely on the basis of the statement of the victim and the FIR appears to be the result of pressure, tutoring, or an afterthought. He also submits that the prosecution has failed to explain the material contradictions between the statement of the victim recorded during the course of investigation and her statement recorded before the learned trial Court. It is further submitted that the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the fact that the victim raised no objection before the learned trial Court during the adjudication of the applicant’s bail application. He submits that the prosecution and the learned trial Court have failed to appreciate the fact that no injuries were found or pointed out by the medical practitioner during the medical examination of the victim. He submits that the victim and the applicant were known to each other and were in a voluntary relationship for a considerable period. The victim had left her parental home of her own accord and accompanied the applicant without any force, coercion, or inducement. He also submits that the present

¶20

¶21

applicant has been in jail since 13.01.2026, conclusion of the trial may take some time, therefore, on the aforesaid ground, he prays for grant of regular bail to the present applicant.

¶22

4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the victim had left her house on 08.11.2025 stating that she was going to attend a dance programme, but did not return thereafter. Despite efforts made by her family members to trace her, she could not be found, and subsequently, the FIR was lodged on suspicion that she had been enticed, lured or kidnapped by the applicant.

¶23

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.

¶24

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant, and upon perusal of the evidence of the victim, it transpires that the victim has not supported the case of the prosecution and has turned hostile before the learned trial Court. She has also expressed no objection to the grant of bail to the present applicant. Further, no injury was found on the person of the victim during her medical examination. Considering the period of custody undergone by the applicant since 13.01.2026 and the fact that the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the applicant deserves to be released on regular bail.

¶25

7. Let applicant, Durgesh Mandavi, involved in Crime No. 176/2025 registered at Police Station : Chura, District – Gariyaband (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 137(2), 65(1) and 87 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for Short POCSO Act), be released on

¶26

¶27

bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶28

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶29

(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

¶30

(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

¶31

(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 351 of BNSS. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed

¶32

¶33

against him in accordance with law.

¶34

8. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith.

¶35

Sd/-

¶36

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶37

Abhishek

Durgesh Mandavi v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Durgesh Mandavi v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases