Allowed

Arman Khan Urf Nanki v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC10 Sept 2026MCRC/5101/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this bail application, the High Court of Chhattisgarh allowed the applicant's request for bail in a case involving offences under POCSO. The judgment notes that the victim and her mother, who are prosecution witnesses, have been declared hostile and have not supported the prosecution case.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; applicant released on bail on furnishing personal bond with two local sureties.

Arman Khan Urf Nanki Vs State of… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

NIRMALA RAO

CGHC010214292026

2026:CGHC:39934

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶7

MCRC No. 5101 of 2026

¶8

1 - Arman Khan Urf Nanki S/o Mansoor Khan Aged About 18 Years Resident Of Ward No. 04, Sultan Nagar, Janjgir-Champa, Naila, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.)

¶9

... Petitioner(s)

¶10

versus

¶11

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Out Post Manikpur, Police Station Kotwali, District Korba (C.G.)

¶12

... Respondent(s)

¶13

For Applicant	: Mr. Arvind Shrivastava, Senior
	Advocate alongwith Mr. Indrajeet
	Singh Thakur, Advocate.
For Non-Applicant	: Mr. RishirajPithwa, Dy.G.A.

¶14

Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

¶15

Order on Board

¶16

11.09.2026

¶17

1. This is the first regular bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS') for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 30/2026 registered at Outpost

¶18

¶19

Manikpur, Police Station-Kotwali, District Korba, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 137(2) and 65(2)(m) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 4 & 6 of POCSO Act.

¶20

2. Learned counsel for the applicant would argue that the applicant has been in jail since 12.1.2026. The victim, aged about 17 years, has already been examined, and she has not supported the case of the prosecution. He would submit that the victim has denied the suggestions put to her by the prosecution. He would further submit that the mother of the victim, who has been examined as PW-1, has also not supported the case of the prosecution. He would submit that the applicant may be entitled to the grant of regular bail.

¶21

3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application of the applicant. He would submit that, on the date of the incident, the age of the victim was 17 years. He would submit that, though the victim has been examined, most of the witnesses are yet to be examined and, therefore, the application may be rejected.

¶22

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

¶23

5. Having considered the fact that the victim and her mother have already been examined and have not supported the case of the prosecution and have been declared hostile, and that the

¶24

¶25

applicant has been in jail since 12.1.2026, I am inclined to allow this bail application.

¶26

6. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant is allowed . Let the Applicant – Arman Khan , involved in Crime No. 30/2026 registered at Outpost Manikpur, Police Station-Kotwali, District Korba, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 137(2) and 65(2)(m) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 4 & 6 of POCSO Act, be released on bail on furnishing personal bond with two local sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶27

(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.

¶28

(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 his under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

¶29

(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 his, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

¶30

(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i)

¶31

¶32

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 against him in accordance with law.

¶33

7. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial

¶34

Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith.

¶35

Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE

¶36

Nimmi

Arman Khan Urf Nanki v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arman Khan Urf Nanki 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