Gulab Soni Vs State of Chhattisgarh

	... Respondent(s)
For Applicant (s)	: Mr. Sandeep Shrivastava with Mr. Rakesh Kumar
	Manikpuri, Advocates
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Rishiraj Pithwa, Dy. GA with Mr. Suresh
	Tandon, Panel Lawyer
Hon'b	le Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas

¶14

CAV Order

¶15

This is the second 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 on 01.12.2025 in connection with Crime No. 355/2025 registered at Police Station- Pendra District Gaurela, Pendra, Marwahi (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 64(2),

¶16

2

¶17

351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and 4 and 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court in MCRC No. 1341 of 2026 on 07.04.2026.

¶18

Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the victim minor girl made written complaint on 29.11.2025 at Police Station Pendra alleging that on 29.11.2025 at about 4 PM, when she was going to her friend Pari Soni’s house. At the same time, the applicant who lives next to her friend’s house called her then she went to his shop as she knew him since long, thereafter the applicant started telling her that you become very weak, as such will give medicine to her to make her well, took her to inside the shop and gave some sweets due to which she was feeling like unconscious then the applicant touched her body forcibly and committed rape with her. It is also case of the prosecution that the applicant told that if the victim disclosed the incident to anyone, he will kill her then she did not disclosed the incident to anyone. On the next day, i.e. on 30.11.2025 the victim informed the incident to her parents thereafter, the incident was reported to Police Station Pendra against the applicant.

¶19

Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that applicant has falsely been implicated in the case and the entire story of the prosecution is fabricated. He would further submit the prosecution has not filed any document to prove allegation levelled on the applicant and he has been roped in the present case because of old rivalry between the family members of the applicant and the victim. He would further submit that so far as undergarments of the victim, slid and swab are concerned, the FSL

¶20

3

¶21

report has been found negative, as such also no case is made out for commission of offence for which the applicant has been charged. He would further submit that as per Cyber report the victim and accused remained in the shop less than 3 minutes, as such in short duration it is not possible of commission of rape, thus the prosecution case itself become doubtful. He would further submit that most of the material witnesses have been examined by the prosecution, nothing has been brought on record by the prosecution against the applicant. He would further submit that this Court has granted liberty to the applicant to revive the bail application after examination of material witnesses. Learned counsel for the applicant would further submit that the applicant is an old man aged about 62 years and he is in jail since 01.12.2025, charge sheet has already been filed and he has no past antecedents of this nature and conclusion of trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion, therefore, the applicant may be granted bail.

¶22

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the aforesaid submission made by learned counsel for the applicants would submit that offence committed by applicant is grievous in nature and against the woman. He would further submit that the victim in her Court statement has reiterated the contains of FIR which has not been rebutted by the defense in the cross-examination of the victim, thus prima-facie involvement of the applicant at this juncture cannot be rulled out, therefore, the applicant is not entitled for grant of bail.

¶23

4

¶24

On 08.07.2026 the victim appeared before this Court through video conferencing and raised objection with regard to grant of bail to the applicant. Her objection was taken on record.

¶25

I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the records with utmost circumspection.

¶26

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the applicant is in jail since 01.12.2025 and charge sheet has already been filed, further considering the fact that out of 22 witnesses, 7 material witnesses have already been examined before the trial Court and also considering the fact that the applicant is aged about of 62 years of age and the trial may take some time for its conclusion, therefore, considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, without commenting upon the merits of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the present applicant is entitled to be released on regular bail in this case.

¶27

Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant is allowed. Let the applicant - Gulab Soni, involved in Crime No. 355/2025 registered at Police Station- Pendra District Gaurela, Pendra, Marwahi (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections for the offence punishable under Sections 64(2), 351(3) of the BNS, 2023 and 4 and 6 of POCSO Act, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶28

(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.

¶29

5

¶30

(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 him under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

¶31

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

¶32

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

¶33

liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶34

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

¶35

Sd/-

¶36

(Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge

¶37

santosh

Gulab Soni v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gulab Soni v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s New Jeewan Bus Services Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dhansay Sahu, Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shrikumari @ Muskan Goswami Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rakesh Jain @ R.K. Jain Vs State of Chhattisgarh

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Mohd. Seraj

Devendra Kumar Chandra Vs M/s Jai Brothers through- Mrityunjai Jaiswal