Allowed

Tarun Kumar Bhaina v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC15 Sept 2026MCRC/7851/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Chhattisgarh granted regular bail to a 20-year-old applicant accused of sexual assault under BNS 2023. Considering the victim's age and the seven-month delay in filing the FIR, the court directed release on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 subject to standard bail conditions.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail upon executing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 to the trial Court, subject to conditions of appearance and non-interference.

Tarun Kumar Bhaina Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Bail and Remand | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

CGHC010323852026 2026:CGHC:40501

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

MCRC No. 7851 of 2026

¶6

Tarun Kumar Bhaina S/o Chhote Lal Bhaina Aged About 20 Years R/o Village- Darri Brahman (Sarhar), P.S.- Saragaon, DistrictJanjgir Champa (C.G.)

¶7

... Applicant

¶8

versus

¶9

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station- Baradwar, District- Sakti (C.G.)

¶10

... Non-applicant

¶11

For Applicant : Mr. Chandra Prakash Lahrey, Advocate For Non-Applicant : Mr. Kanwaljeet Singh Saini, Dy. G. A.

¶12

Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

¶13

Order on Board

¶14

16.09.2026

¶15

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. 184/2026 registered at Police Station : Baradwar, District : Sakti (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 64(2)(m) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

¶16

2. The prosecution story in brief is that the prosecutrix while visiting

¶17

¶18

her sister’s home came into contact with the applicant. On 04.10.2025, applicant engaged in sexual intercourse with the victim on the pretext of marriage. On 17.05.2026, applicant again sexually assaulted the victim and later expelled her from his house. Thereafter, prosecutrix informed her sister and lodged the FIR. Police registered offence as stated above and arrested the applicant.

¶19

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a 20-year old innocent boy who was in consensual relationship with prosecutrix, who was also a major lady aged about 19 years. He also submits that FIR was lodged with delay of seven months and applicant is in jail since 01.06.2026, conclusion of the trial may take some time, therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the present applicant.

¶20

4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposes the bail application of the present applicant and submits that the present applicant/accused lured the victim and sexually assaulted her on pretext of marriage, therefore, the applicant is not entitled for grant of regular bail.

¶21

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

¶22

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that victim was a major lady aged about 19 years on the date of

¶23

¶24

incident and she was in love relationship with the applicant for considerable period. Also considering the fact that the FIR has been lodged with delay of seven months and applicant has been in jail since 01.06.2026, 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.

¶25

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:-

¶26

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

¶27

(b)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; and

¶28

¶29

The observation made hereinabove is for the purpose of deciding this bail application only, the learned trial Court shall 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: 2026.09.17 10:42:04 +0530

Tarun Kumar Bhaina v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tarun Kumar Bhaina 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