Vijay Kumar Tendley Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Jittu @ Jitendra Dahariya, S/o Tikaram Dahariya Aged About 19 Years, R/o Ward No.8, Bilha, P.S. Bilha, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh --- Applicant

¶12

Versus

¶13

SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA

¶14

Digitally signed by SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Date: 2026.07.08 11:02:01 +0530

¶15

2

¶16

State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Bilha, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh --- Non-applicant

¶17

M.Cr.C No.4374 of 2026

¶18

Mona @ Devraj Bhardwaj, S/o Late Umesh Bhardwaj, Aged About 19 Years, R/o Ward No. 09, Bilha, Police-Thana-Bilha DistrictBilaspur (C.G.) --- Applicant

¶19

Versus

¶20

State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Police Station- Bilha DistrictBilaspur (C.G.) --- Non-applicant

¶21

M.Cr.C No.4352 of 2026

¶22

Vijay Kumar Tendley, S/o Shukhchand Tendley Aged About 21 Years, R/o Ward No.08, Bilha, Police- Thana- Bilha DistrictBilaspur (C.G.) --- Applicant

¶23

Versus

¶24

State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Police Station- Bilha DistrictBilaspur (C.G.) --- Non-applicant

¶25

For respective Applicants : Shri Sumit Singh Rathore along with Ms. Manisha Yadav and Shri Sanjay Kumar Yadav, Advocate. Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Laxmin Kashyap, PL.

¶26

3

¶27

Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Order on Board

¶28

07.07.2026

¶29

These are the 1^st bail applications filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the Applicants, who have been arrested in connection with Crime No.94/2026 registered at Police Station - Bilha, District Bilaspur for the offence under Sections 127(2), 74, 79, 296, 115(2), 351(3) and 3(5) of BNS 2023 as also under Section 8 of POCSO Act.

¶30

As per the prosecution case, the victim lodged a report alleging that the present Applicants assaulted her and used criminal force with the intention of outraging her modesty. It is further alleged that on 12.02.2026 at about 8:30 p.m., following an altercation between the Applicants and the victim's father and brother over the alleged love affair between the victim and the main accused, the Applicants assaulted the victim's father and brother with belts, hands and fists, as a result of which they sustained simple injuries. On the basis of the said report, the present crime came to be registered against the Applicants. Hence, this application.

¶31

Learned Counsel for the Applicants submit that the Applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that Applicants Rahul Lehre, Mona @ Devraj

¶32

4

¶33

Bharadwaj and Vijay Kumar Tendley, who are friends of Applicant Jittu @ Jitendra Dehariya, neither assaulted the victim nor was any photograph or video seized from their possession has been seized by the prosecution during the investigation. It is further submitted that no weapon was used in the alleged incident, the victim did not sustain any injury and the victim's father and brother sustained only simple injuries. It is further submitted that Applicants Vijay Kumar Tendley and Mona @ Devraj Bharadwaj are in custody since 13.02.2026, Applicant Jittu @ Jitendra Dehariya since 14.02.2026 and Applicant Rahul Lehre since 16.03.2026. It is lastly submitted that the trial is likely to take considerable time for its conclusion, therefore, the Applicants deserve to be enlarged on bail.

¶34

Per contra, learned State Counsel opposes the bail applications and submits that the victim was aged about 17 years and 4 months at the relevant time and Applicant Jittu @ Jitendra Dehariya threatened her that her photographs and videos would be made viral.

¶35

Victim, along with her father, has appeared before this Court and raised objection with regard to grant of bail to the Applicant.

¶36

Having considered the submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties and the facts and circumstances of the case, the pre-trial detention and the fact that the trial is likely to take quite

¶37

5

¶38

some time for its conclusion, without further commenting on the merits of the case, I am inclined to release the Applicants on regular bail.

¶39

Accordingly, the bail applications are allowed. The Applicants are directed to be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- with one surety each in the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court for their appearance before the said

¶40

Court as and when directed, subject to the following conditions:-

¶41

(a) The Applicants shall not visit the vicinity of the victim;

¶42

(b) The Applicants shall not commit any offence of a similar nature during the pendency of the trial; and

¶43

(c) The Applicants shall not directly or indirectly induce, threaten or promise any prosecution witness, nor shall they in any manner influence or intimidate the prosecution witnesses during the pendency of the trial.

¶44

Sd/-

¶45

(Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge

¶46

Priya

Vijay Kumar Tendley v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Kumar Tendley 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

Shivam Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Jitendra Yadav @ Kallu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dharmraj Sahu @ Dharmu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Govind Kumar Nagwanshi Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Tilak Ram Verma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dr. N. K. Garg (in Person) Vs D. K. Tiwari (Senior Agriculture Development Officer)