1 2026:CGHC:5811 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 80 of 2026 Harish Kumar Das S/o Udit Prasad Ram Aged About 44 Years R/o Village House No. 275, Ward No. 8, Kalonagar, Tapkara, Tehsil Farsabahar And P.S. Tapkara, Distt. Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House OfÏcer, P.S. Tapkara, District- Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Arun Kumar Shukla, Advocate For Non-Applicant : Ms. Anusha Naik, Deputy Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 02.02.2026 1. The applicant has preferred this application under Section 482 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of Anticipatory Bail, apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No. 89/2025, registered at Police Station – Tapkara, District- Jashpur (C.G.) for alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 64, 64(2)(M), 65(1) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, and Section 4 and 6 of POCSO Act. RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 2. As per the prosecution story in brief is that on 26.03.2024 the mother of the minor victim called the applicant to her house and thereafter sent the minor victim along with him. It is further alleged that the applicant took the minor victim to his residence and subjected her to sexual assault. The prosecution further alleges that for a period of about one and a half years thereafter, the minor victim was repeatedly sent with the applicant during night hours and was subjected to similar acts. It is also alleged that on 01.12.2025 at about 10:00 p.m., the minor victim was again allowed to go with the applicant, whereupon the applicant allegedly committed sexual assault upon her. On the basis of these allegations, the police have registered the present case against the applicant, however, considering the sensitive nature of the matter and involvement of a minor, the FIR has not been placed on record. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is an innocent person and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended that the FIR has been lodged after an inordinate and unexplained delay, which itself casts serious doubt on the veracity of the prosecution story and indicates that the allegations have been levelled after due deliberation and with an oblique motive. It is further submitted that there is no cogent evidence on record to show that the applicant ever called the victim or had any physical relations with her, and the entire story has been falsely fabricated owing to village rivalry and local politics. He further submits that the medical evidence does not support the prosecution case, as the medical report is negative and contrary to 3 the allegations, though the doctor referred the victim to a radiologist for age determination, the prosecution failed to carry out the same. It is also pointed out that the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. does not contain any specific allegation against the present applicant, and therefore, no prima facie case is made out against him. Therefore he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the present applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel vehemently opposes the submissions advanced on behalf of the applicant and raises a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the present anticipatory bail application. It is submitted that in view of the express statutory bar contained under Section 482(4) of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the remedy of anticipatory bail is not available to the applicant, as the offence is registered under Section 65 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, which squarely falls within the excluded category under the said provision. She further submits that the statute specifically prohibits the grant of anticipatory bail in cases involving offences under Sections 65 or 70(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, and therefore, the present application is not maintainable in law and is liable to be rejected at the threshold, without entering into the merits of the case. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order passed by the trial Court. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the preliminary objection raised by the learned State counsel, this Court 4 is of the considered opinion that the present anticipatory bail application is not maintainable in law in view of the specific statutory bar contained under Section 482(4) of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, as the offence alleged against the applicant falls under Section 65 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. This Court further finds that the learned counsel for the applicant has failed to satisfactorily overcome or waive out the objection regarding non-maintainability raised by the learned State counsel. 7. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant – Harish Kumar Das, filed under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 involved in Crime No. 89/2025, registered at Police Station – Tapkara, District- Jashpur (C.G.) for alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 64, 64(2)(M), 65(1) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, and Section 4 and 6 of POCSO Act, is dismissed as not maintainable, in view of Section 65 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan