Allowed

Tarun Kumar Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC15 Sept 2026MCRC/6557/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a regular bail application under Section 483 BNSS 2023 for offences under BNS and POCSO, the High Court allowed bail, noting the victim denied prosecution suggestions and the trial would take time.

What did the court decide?

Bail allowed with personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions regarding attendance, no adjournment seeking on evidence dates, and proceeding under Section 209 BNSS if proclamation conditions

Tarun Kumar Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

CGHC010271672026

2026:CGHC:40467

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

MCRC No. 6557 of 2026

¶7

1 - Tarun Kumar Sahu S/o Paras Ram Sahu Aged About 24 Years R/o Village Achoti P.S. Tehsil Kurud, Distict Dhamtari C.G.

¶8

...Applicant(s)

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, P.S. Kurud District Dhamtari C.G. ... Respondent

¶11

For Applicant : Mr. Prasoon Agrawal Advocate For Respondent/State : Ms. Ankita Shukla, P.L.

¶12

Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

¶13

Order on Board

¶14

16.09.2026

¶15

Digitally signed by JYOTI JHA Date: 2026.09.17 17:14:00 +0530

¶16

1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 89/2026, registered at Police Station Kurud District Dhamtari (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 64(2)(m) and 65(1) of BNS and 4 of POCSO Act.

¶17

2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the applicant sexually assaulted the victim, aged about 14 years. The FIR was lodged against the applicant by the victim, pursuant to which the offences, as stated

¶18

¶19

above, were registered against him.

¶20

3. In pursuance of the notice issued to the victim, vide order dated 31.08.2026, the victim along with her father appeared before this Court through virtual mode and raised objection to releasing the applicant on bail.

¶21

4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant would submit that, as per the allegation levelled against the present applicant in the FIR, the age of the victim on 07.12.2024 was 14 years and, on 28.03.2026, she was 18 years of age. He would further submit that the victim has already been examined and she has not supported the case of the prosecution, and further denied the suggestions put forth by the Public Prosecutor. He also submits that the applicant is in jail since 29.03.2026. He, therefore, prays for grant of bail to the applicant.

¶22

5. On the other hand, learned State counsel would oppose the bail application and submit that the victim was 14 years of age on the date of the incident. She would further submit that the medical evidence supports the allegation made against the present applicant and, therefore, the application moved by applicant for grant of bail may be rejected.

¶23

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

¶24

7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, and particularly considering the fact that the victim has already been examined and she has not supported the case of the prosecution, and further, she denied the suggestions put forth by the Public Prosecutor,

¶25

¶26

as also the fact that the applicant is in custody since 29.03.2026, and that the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, I am inclined to grant bail to the present applicant. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶27

8. Let applicant- Tarun Kumar Sahu involved in Crime No. 89/2026, registered at Police Station Kurud District Dhamtari (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 64(2)(m) and 65(1) of BNS and 4 of POCSO Act, be released on bail on furnishing 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

(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.

¶30

(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.

¶31

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

¶32

¶33

(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.

¶34

9. 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

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶37

Jyoti

Tarun Kumar Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tarun Kumar Sahu 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