Ritik Ajgalle Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

Digitally signed by ALLENA ALLENAANNAJEE ANNAJEE RAO RAO Date:2026.02.05 14:30:15 +0530

¶3

2026:CGHC:6348

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

MCRC No. 686 of 2026

¶7

Ritik Ajgalle S/o Shri Manoj Ajgalle Aged About 18 Years R/o Village Godam, Police Station Sarangarh, District Sarangarh- Bilaigarh C.G. (Wrongly mentioned the address of the Applicant in the impugned order as Govardhan Sabji Mandi, Thana Govardhan Mathura, Uttar Pradesh)

¶8

... Applicant

¶9

versus

¶10

State of Chhattisgarh through the Station House Officer, Police Station Sarangarh, District Sarangarh- Bilaigarh Chhattisgarh ... Respondent

¶11

For the applicant	: Mr.	Roop Ram Naik, Advocate
For the State	: Mr.	Siddhant Tiwari, Panel Lawyer

¶12

(Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal)

¶13

Order on Board

¶14

04.02.2026

¶15

1. This is first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant in Crime No. 202/2025 registered at Police Station Sarangarh, District Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (CG) for the offences under Sections 137(2), 87, 65(1)4(2), 64(2-M) of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita & Section 4(2) & 6 of the POCSO Act.

¶16

2

¶17

2. As per the prosecution case, on 02.05.2025 at about 12.00 noon the applicant has abducted the victim girl of aged about 16 years from the lawful custody of her parents and during the period from 02.05.2025 to 20.06.2025 he kept her in Govardhan Mandi, Mathura (Uttar Pradesh) and many times committed forcible sexual intercourse with her.

¶18

3. Learned counsel for the applicant refers to the court statement of victim and submits that the victim herself had gone to Mathura (Uttar Pradesh) to meet the applicant where he was working and both they have performed marriage and lived as wife and husband for a considerable time, therefore, she was consenting party. He further submits that although the victim is stated to be minor, yet the evidence of correct age has not been proved. He submits that the applicant is in jail since 22.06.2025 and till date out of a total 24 witnesses, only the victim has been examined and and there is no immediate possibility of disposal of case, therefore, the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶19

4. Per contra, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application and submits that at the time of incident, the victim was minor and the applicant has committed forcible sexual intercourse with her on many occasions.

¶20

5. The victim along with her mother appeared through VC from the concerned DLSA and raised objection to grant bail.

¶21

6. Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the court statement of the victim and further looking to the over all facts situation of the case, without

¶22

3

¶23

observing anything on the merits of the case, I am inclined to release the applicant on regular bail.

¶24

7. Accordingly, this bail application is allowed and the applicant is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the said Court as and when directed in that behalf.

¶25

Cc as per rules.

¶26

Sd/-

¶27

(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge

¶28

Rao

Ritik Ajgalle v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ritik Ajgalle 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

Khalid Raza Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Manish Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Purshottam Chandrakar Vs Ashok Agrawal

Suraj Nirmalkar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Gaurav Sonkar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Khemraj Chouhan Vs State of Chhattisgarh