Dismissed¶24

Abdul Sohel v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC12 Feb 2026MCRC/465/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

MCRC No. 465 of 2026, High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur, decided 13/02/2026 by Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal. Regular bail under Section 483 BNSS 2023 rejected for accused in Crime No. 517/2025, PS Kawardha, Distt. Kabirdham, charged under BNS Sections 64(2)(m), 65(1), 115(2), 351(3) and POCSO Sections 4(2) & 6 for sexual intercourse with a minor victim obtained by threatening to viralise her obscene photos/videos; victim and mother objected via video conferencing; trial not commenced, charge-sheet filed; bail declined without commenting on merits.

What did the court decide?

Considering the facts of the case, the prosecution evidence against the applicant, and that the trial had not yet commenced, the Court declined to release the applicant on bail, expressly without commenting on the merits of the case. ¶24

Abdul Sohel Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

2026:CGHC:8076

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

MCRC No. 465 of 2026

¶6

Abdul Sohel S/o Jaheem Khan Aged About 21 Years R/o Ward No. 5, Near Shani Mandir, Adarsh Nagar, Kawardha, Distt. Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh.

¶7

... Applicant

¶8

versus

¶9

State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Of Police Kawardha, Distt. Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh.

¶10

... Respondent

¶11

{Cause title, as taken from CIS}

¶12

For Applicant	: Mr. Virendra Verma, and Mr. Kanahiya Ram Yadav,
	Advocates.
For Respondent(s)	: Ms. Sunita Manikpuri, Government Advocate

¶13

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal

¶14

Order On Board

¶15

13/02/2026

¶16

The victim and her mother appeared through Video Conferencing and recorded ‘objection’ in granting bail to the applicant.

¶17

The applicant has preferred this 1^st bail application under Section 483 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita Act 2023 for grant of regular bail as he is arrested in connection with crime No. 517 / 2025, registered at Police Station – Kawardha, District Kabirdham (C.G.) for offence punishable under Sections 64 (2)(m), 65(1), 115(2) & 351(3) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita and Sections 4 (2) & 6 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offneces Act, 2012 (for brevity, “POCSO”).

¶18

The case of the prosecution, in short, is that on 19.11.2025 when the minor victim, aged about 17-18 years, was returning from the college, at about 3.00 PM, the applicant came there and asked her that “if you

¶19

¶20

do not talk with him then he will make her photo / video viral and, on the pretext of which, he harassed the victim physically and mentally. It is stated that she had become friend with the application a year ago. In the meantime, applicant took her obscene photo in his mobile phone and made a video also and by showing these photographs and videos and threatening her to make it viral, he committed sexual intercourse with her 3-4 times and thereby committed the aforesaid offences. Based on above, aforesaid offences have been registered against the applicant and he was arrested on 20.11.2025.

¶21

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the crime in question. He further submits that there is delay in lodging the FIR and no proper explanation was given for the same. Victim was a consenting party to the act of the applicant, as due to her family pressure, she lodged the report against the applicant. He next submits that mobile handset from which the photographs/videos were allegedly taken by the applicant has not been recovered / seized from his possession; the applicant is languishing in jail since 20.11.2025 and the trial yet not commenced and is likely to take some time to be concluded and the charge-sheet has already been filed, therefore, it is prayed that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶22

Per contra, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the bail application and submits that the manner in which alleged offences are said to have been committed by the applicant with the minor victim, he is not entitled to be released on bail.

¶23

I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case dairy.

¶24

Considering the facts of the case and prosecution evidence against the applicant, further considering that the trial yet not commenced, without commenting on merits of the case, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail.

¶25

Accordingly, the bail application is rejected .

¶26

ami

¶27

Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge

¶28

AMITA Digitally signed by AMITADUBEY Date: 2026.02.19 11:44:40 DUBEY +0530

Abdul Sohel v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Sohel 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

Santosh Vishwakarma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Bhaskar Prasad Tripathi Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Piyush Tiwari Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Daneshwar Yadu @ Chhotu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Pritam Sidar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rajkumar Meshram Vs Shyam Verma