Dismissed

Ganesh Manjhi v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC14 Sept 2026MCRC/5190/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge order rejecting the first bail application of Ganesh Manjhi, a CRPF Constable, charged with offences under POCSO and IPC relating to sexual intercourse with a minor. The court held that since the victim was a minor and the applicant is the biological father of the child born, bail cannot be granted. The court stated the alibi defence is a matter of evidence for the trial court.

What did the court decide?

Application for grant of regular bail was rejected.

Ganesh Manjhi Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2026.09.16 16:59:55 +0530

CGHC010215212026

2026:CGHC:40273

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶7

MCRC No. 5190 of 2026

¶8

Ganesh Manjhi S/o Munnaram Manjhi Aged About 26 Years R/o Barsoor, Ward No. 7, P.S. Barsoor, Distt. South Bastar, Dantewada Chhattisgarh ... Applicant

¶9

versus

¶10

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Mahila Thana Dantewada, Distt. South Bastar Dantewada Chhattisgarh

¶11

... Non-Applicant

¶12

For Applicant : Mr. Raj Kumar Gupta, Advocate For State : Ms. Priya Sharma, Panel Lawyer

¶13

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board

¶14

15.09.2026

¶15

This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 02/2026 registered at Police Station Mahila Thana Dantewada, District South Bastar Dantewada (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 376(2)(n) & 506 of IPC and Section 4 & 6 of POCSO.

¶16

Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that a written complaint was lodged by the victim on 05.04.2026 against the present applicant to the effect that between 08.02.2022 to 09.08.2023, the applicant herein, on pretext of marriage maintained physical relationship, resultantly the victim became

¶17

¶18

pregnant. On such complaint, police registered offence as stated above.

¶19

Mr. Raj Kumar Gupta, Advocate appearing for the applicant would submit that as per allegation, age of the victim was 17 years and 11 months on the date of incident. He would further contend that when the victim conceived, she was above 18 years of age. Mr. Gupta would further contend that in the month of August, 2023, the applicant was posted at Mahadev Nagar, Latur, Maharashtra as he was a Constable in Central Reserved Police Force (CRPF), and in this regard, he has placed a certificate issued by the competent authority dated 25.04.2026. He would submit that charge-sheet has been filed and applicant is in jail since 13.04.2026, thus, he would pray for grant of bail.

¶20

On the other hand, Ms. Priya Sharma, Panel Lawyer appearing for the State would oppose. She would submit that the age of the victim was below 18 years on the date of incident. She would further contend that DNA was conducted and the applicant has been found biological father of child, who was born on 27.05.2024. She would contend that as there are serious allegations against the present applicant, this application deserves to be rejected.

¶21

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

¶22

Admittedly, the applicant is a member of armed force. He maintained physical relation with a minor below 18 years of age for considerable period, and resultantly, victim gave birth to a child on 27.05.2024 and according to DNA report, the applicant is biological father of that child. With regard to deployment of the present applicant in the month of August, 2023, it is

¶23

¶24

matter of evidence and the applicant would get sufficient opportunity to prove defence of alibi before the learned trial Court. The victim was below 18 years of age on the date of incident, therefore, I am not inclined to grant bail to the present applicant.

¶25

Accordingly, the instant application for the grant of bail is hereby rejected .

¶26

Sd/-

¶27

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE

¶28

$iddhant

Ganesh Manjhi v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ganesh Manjhi 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