Allowed

Umesh Kodaku v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC15 Sept 2026MCRC/5920/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted regular bail to the applicant charged with POCSO-related offences and other BNS sections. The court noted the victim did not support the prosecution and directed execution of a personal bond.

What did the court decide?

The applicant is released on bail by executing a personal bond for Rs. 50,000/- with conditions to make himself available, not induce witnesses, and ensure fair trial.

Umesh Kodaku Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

CGHC010244542026 2026:CGHC:40391

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

MCRC No. 5920 of 2026

¶6

Umesh Kodaku S/o Bipta Kodaku Aged About 23 Years R/o Village Dumarkhorka, Ps Balrampur, District BalrampurRamanujganj (C.G.)

¶7

... Applicant

¶8

versus

¶9

 State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police
Station Balrampur, District- Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) ... Non-applicant
For Applicant : Mr. Hariom Rai, Advocate
For Non-Applicant : Ms. Priya Sharma, P.L.

¶10

Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

¶11

Order on Board

¶12

16.09.2026

¶13

1. 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. 35/2025 registered at Police Station : Balrampur, DistrictBalrampur Ramanujganj (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 137(2) and 64(2)(M) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act.

¶14

¶15

2. The prosecution story in brief is that father of the prosecutrix lodged a written complaint on 28.03.2025, stating that on 27.03.2025, his minor daughter went missing from her paternal home, and he cast suspicion on Umesh Kodaku. Based on the missing person report dated 27.03.2025, the concerned police station registered an offence under Section 137(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). During the course of the investigation, it emerged that on the pretext of marriage, a physical relationship had developed between them. Based on the prosecution's case, offences under Section 64(2)(m) of the BNS and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act were added. Following investigation, the charge-sheet was filed under Sections 137(2) and 64(2)(m) of the BNS, read with Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act. Subsequently, charges have also been framed.

¶16

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a 23-year old innocent boy who has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that prosecutrix has been examined before the learned Trial Court where she has not supported the case of prosecution. He also submits that the applicant has no criminal antecedents and he is in jail since 28.03.2025, conclusion of the trial may take some time, therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the present applicant.

¶17

4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposes the bail

¶18

¶19

application of the present applicant and submits that the present applicant/accused lured the minor girl and sexually assaulted her, therefore, the applicant is not entitled for grant of regular bail.

¶20

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

¶21

6. Though, the victim appeared before this Court on 12.08.2026 through video conferencing and raised objection in releasing the applicant on bail but considering the facts and circumstances of the case and from perusal of the evidence of the victim recorded before the learned Trial Court, it appears that victim has not supported the case of prosecution and denied the suggestions put forth by the public prosecutor. Also considering the fact that the charge-sheet has already been submitted before the competent Court and the applicant has been in jail since 28.03.2025, the trial is likely to take sometime for its conclusion, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.

¶22

7. It is directed that in the event of the applicant executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court, he shall be released on bail on the following conditions:-

¶23

(a) he shall make himself available for interrogation by the police officer as and when required;

¶24

(b)he shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person

¶25

¶26

acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such fact to the Court; and

¶27

¶28

The observation made hereinabove is for the purpose of deciding this bail application only, the learned trial Court shall

¶29

decide the case on its own merits.

¶30

Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE

¶31

A j i n k y a

¶32

Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2026.09.16 14:15:00 +0530

Umesh Kodaku v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Umesh Kodaku 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