Vimal Kumar Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Ms. Shubham Tripathi, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Priya Sharma, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board

¶11

17.09.2026

¶12

RAJSHEKHAR SONI 1. Pursuant to order dated 31.08.2026 the victim along with her father Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI appeared before this Court through video conferencing facilitated by District Legal Services Authority (DLSA) and has raised objection in releasing the applicant on bail.

¶13

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. 87/2026 registered at Police Station – Sariya, District – Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 376, 376(2)(n) and 506(B) of the IPC, Sections 64(2)(m), 64(1) and 351(3) of the BNS and Sections 4 and 6 of POCSO Act.

¶14

Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the FIR was lodged by the victim against the applicant alleging that the between 10.06.2024 to

¶15

2

¶16

20.01.2026, the applicant has maintained physical relationship with the victim on the pretext of marriage and later on he refused to marry her. On the date of incident, the age of the victim was 16 years and 10 months. Thereafter, the Police registered the crime and arrested the applicant. Hence, this application.

¶17

Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that there was consensual relationship between the applicant and the victim. The marriage of the applicant was fixed and when the marriage card was served upon the father of the victim, the FIR was lodged on 02.05.2026. It is further submitted that though the age of the victim on the date of incident is 16 years and 10 months, but on the date of lodging the FIR, the victim was aged about 18 years and 10 months, and there is a delay of about 2 years for lodging the FIR. It is further submitted that the charge-sheet has been filed in this case before the competent trial Court, and the applicant is in jail since 26.05.2026. Thus, he would pray for grant of bail to the applicant.

¶18

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would oppose the bail application, and submits that on the date of incident the victim was minor aged about 16 years and 10 months, and the allegation against the applicant is that he has sexually exploited the victim on the pretext of marriage, and thereafter refused to marry her. Thus, the instant bail application deserves to be rejected.

¶19

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

¶20

Having considered the fact that on the date of loding the FIR dated 02.05.2026, the age of the victim was 18 years and 10 months, and

¶21

3

¶22

she has maintained consensual physical relationship with the applicant many times for two years from 10.06.2024 to 20.01.2026, and marriage of the applicant was fixed and when the marriage card was served upon the father of the victim, the present FIR was lodged, the chargesheet has been filed in this case before the competent trial Court, and the applicant is in jail since 26.05.2026, I am inclined to allow this bail application.

¶23

Accordingly, the regular bail application is allowed and it is directed that in the event of the applicant executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court, they shall be released on bail on the following conditions:-

¶24

(i) he shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such fact to the Court;

¶25

(ii) he shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial, &

¶26

(iii) he shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to him by the said Court till disposal of the trial.

¶27