Dismissed¶26

Dwarika Verma v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC8 Jul 2026MCRC/4655/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chhattisgarh High Court, Bilaspur; MCRC No. 4655 of 2026; first regular bail application rejected; S. 483 BNSS 2023; offences under Ss. 137(2), 87, 64(1)(2)(M) BNS and Ss. 4, 5(1)/6 POCSO Act; Crime No. 152/2026 P.S. Balod; prosecutrix recovered from applicant's custody; sexual intercourse on pretext of marriage; victim below 18; victim and mother objected via DLSA video conferencing (order dated 15.05.2026); custody since 29.12.2025; bail denied on nature and gravity of offence; Radhakishan Agrawal, J.; decided 09.07.2026.

What did the court decide?

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the nature and gravity of the offence, the Court is not inclined to release the applicant on bail. ¶25

Dwarika Verma Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

CGHC010190342026

2026:CGHC:28472

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 4655 of 2026

¶6

1 - Dwarika Verma S/o Munna Lal Aged About 21 Years R/o Village Kalchiha, P.S. Badgarh, Distt. Chitrakut, U.P.

¶7

... Applicant(s)

¶8

versus

¶9

ABHIGYASAXENA Digitallysigned byABHIGYA SAXENA

¶10

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Of Police Station Balod, Distt. Balod, Chhattisgarh.

¶11

... Respondent(s)

¶12

For Applicant : Mr. Nitesh Sahu, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Afroz Khan, Panel Lawyer

¶13

(Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal)

¶14

Order on Board

¶15

09.07.2026

¶16

1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No.152/2026 registered at Police Station – Balod District Balod C.G., for the offence punishable under Sections 137(2), 87 and 64(1)(2)(M) of BNS and Sections 4 and 5(1)/6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act.

¶17

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the mother of the prosecutrix lodged a report at Police Station Balod stating that on 09.03.2025 at about 10:00 a.m., her daughter had left the house without informing

¶18

¶19

any of the family members. On the basis of the said report, a crime was registered for the offence punishable under Section 137(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. During the course of the investigation, the prosecutrix was recovered from the custody of the present applicant, and on the basis of her memorandum statement, the aforesaid offences were added to the case.

¶20

3. In compliance of order dated 15.05.2026, the victim is present along with her mother through video conferencing from the concerned DLSA, and on being asked, they have raised ‘objection’ to the application filed by the applicant for grant of bail.

¶21

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended that the relationship between the applicant and the prosecutrix was consensual party despite of this fact the victim continuously remained in relationship with the application as per the version of prosecution. It is further submitted that the prosecution has failed to establish the alleged offences by cogent and reliable evidence. The applicant has been in custody since 29.12.2025, the trial is likely to take considerable time, and, therefore, he prays that he be enlarged on bail.

¶22

5. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that when the office was committed the victim was below 18 years and the applicant has committed continuous sexual intercourse with the victim on the pretext of marriage, therefore, he prays for dismissal of the application.

¶23

¶24

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

¶25

7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the nature and gravity of the offence, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail.

¶26

8. Accordingly, the bail application filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 is rejected.

¶27

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

¶28

Sd/-

¶29

(Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge

¶30

Saxena

Dwarika Verma v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dwarika Verma 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

A B C Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shivshankar Sinha, Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Vimal Kumar Nat Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Abhishek Kumar Paikra Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

Roshan Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Deepa Das Vs State of Chhattisgarh