Dismissed¶24

Dipika Patre v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC2 Jul 2026MCRC/5047/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

MCRC No. 5047 of 2026; High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur; Radhakishan Agrawal, J.; regular bail rejected; Section 483 BNSS; Sections 137(2)/3(5), 87/3(5), 55 BNS; Section 6/17 POCSO Act 2012; Crime No. 296/2025, P.S. Hirri, District Bilaspur (C.G.); abduction of minor girl below 18 years on 03.12.2025; aggravated penetrative sexual assault 03.12.2025 to 10.12.2025; co-accused Jaiprakash Patre (husband of applicant); abetment by Rahul Kurre; victim examined as P.W.1; victim and mother objected in Court; applicant in jail since 04.12.2025; trial pending; Dipika Patre; first bail application dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the material available on record and the fact that the trial is going on, the Court was not inclined to release the applicant on bail. ¶23

Dipika Patre Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶4

MCRC No. 5047 of 2026

¶5

Digitally signed by ALLENA ANJANI KUMAR Date: 2026.07.03 16:16:27 +0530

¶6

Dipika Patre W/o Jay Prakash Patre Aged About 26 Years R/o- Medpara Bazar, P.S. Hirri, Dist.- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Applicant

¶7

versus

¶8

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station- Hirri, Dist.- Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶9

... Non-applicant

¶10

For Applicant : Ms. Shruti Dewangan, Advocate For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Supriya Upasne, G.A.

¶11

(HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE RADHAKISHAN AGRAWAL)

¶12

Order on Board

¶13

03/07/2026

¶14

This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, the B.N.S.S.) for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 296/2025 registered at Police Station – Hirri, District Bilaspur (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 137(2)/3(5), 87/3(5), 55 of Bhartiya Nyay Samhita (for short, the BNS) and Section 6/17 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short, the POCSO).

¶15

As per the prosecution’s case, on 03.12.2025 at about 11:00 AM, the applicant and the co-accused Jaiprakash Patre, in furtherance of their common intention, abducted the minor victim below the age of 18 years for sexual intercourse, without the permission of her legal

¶16

¶17

guardian and between 03.12.2025 to 10.12.2025, the co-accused Jaiprakash Patre committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault on her (the victim), in which, another co-accused Rahul Kurre abetted the co-accused Jaiprakash Kurre. The matter was reported by the father of the victim to the police Station Hirri. Based on this, offence under the aforesaid sections has been registered against the present applicant.

¶18

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and there is no direct involvement of the applicant in the alleged offence. She further submits that the applicant is the wife of coaccused Jaiprakash Patre and mother of 2 years old child. She also submits that the applicant is in jail since 04.12.2025 and that, trial is going on and it may take some considerable time to conclude. On these premises, he prays for grant of regular bail to the applicant.

¶19

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application, while submitting that as per the prosecution case and that of the statement of victim (P.W.1), the applicant/accused came to the victim on the pretext of getting her work, on which, the victim was agreed upon and thereafter the applicant called a boy and sent the victim with him and subsequently, the applicant assisted the main accused in the commission of the crime and not only this, the husband of the applicant also threatened the victim to kill her. She further submits that if the prosecution story coupled with the statement of the victim (P.W.1) is taken as it is, the involvement of the present applicant is clearly borne out, therefore, the applicant does not deserve regular bail.

¶20

Victim and her mother are present in Court and raised objection with regard to the grant of bail to the applicant.

¶21

¶22

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

¶23

Taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the material available on record and taking into account that the trial is going on, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail.

¶24