1 2026:CGHC:5210-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 2542 of 2025 Vijay Paswan S/o Bhawani Paswan Aged About 31 Years R/o Bhagta PS Laliya District- Balrampur UP. ... Appellant versus The State Of Chhattisgarh Through SHO, Ps Bilaigarh, District- Sarangarh - Bilaigarh C.G. ... Respondent (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mrs. Shital Soni, Advocate along with Mrs. Vijyita Sahu, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Saumya Rai, Deputy Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 30/01/2026 1. Heard Mrs. Shital Soni and Mrs. Vijyita Sahu, learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as Mr. Saumya Rai, learned Deputy Govt. Advocate, appearing for the State/respondent. VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2026.01.31 13:30:36 +0530 2 2. This Criminal Appeal under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 has been preferred by the appellant–Vijay Paswan, who is presently in judicial custody, assailing the order dated 20.11.2025 passed by the learned Principal District & Sessions Judge, Bilaspur (C.G.) in Spl. Case (NIA) No. 10/2025, whereby the appellant’s application for bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita was rejected in connection with Crime No. 150/2024 registered at Police Station Bilaigarh, District Sarangarh- Bilaigarh, for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 370A, 370(4), 376 of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 20.05.2024, the mother of the prosecutrix lodged a missing report at Police Station Bilaigarh, District Sarangarh-Bilaigarh, alleging that her minor daughter had left the house on 22.04.2024 at about 08:30 a.m. from Village Karbadabari without informing anyone and could not be traced despite efforts made by family members. Initially, an FIR was registered under Section 363 of the IPC against unknown person(s). Subsequently, upon recording the statements of the prosecutrix and during the course of investigation, additional offences under Sections 370A, 370(4), 376 of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act were added. 4. During investigation, the present appellant was arrested on 04.07.2025 and has remained in judicial custody since then. Upon completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed and charges were framed against the appellant for the aforesaid offences, which he denied. The trial commenced and, till date, only five prosecution witnesses, including 3 the prosecutrix, her parents, a medical officer and the Head Master, have been examined out of the total thirty cited witnesses. The appellant’s application for bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita was rejected by the learned Principal District & Sessions Judge, Bilaspur vide order dated 20.11.2025, which has given rise to the present appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the statement of the victim has already been recorded during the course of trial. It is argued that there is no previous FIR or criminal antecedent against the appellant and, significantly, the appellant was not named either in the statement recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. nor in the statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. of the victim. For the first time, the name of the appellant has been disclosed before the trial Court during the examination-in-chief of the prosecutrix. Learned counsel submits that, in these circumstances, the allegations levelled against the appellant appear to be an afterthought and lack credibility. 6. Learned counsel further submits that, as per the prosecution case itself, the main accused persons are Sanjay Kumar Verma and Guru Prasad Verma, who are alleged to be directly involved in the offence and to have committed sexual intercourse with the victim. It is submitted that the role attributed to the present appellant is limited and secondary in nature, and it is alleged that the appellant, along with Sanjay Kumar Verma and Dr. Jagdish Verma, sold the victim for a sum of Rs. 35,000/-. Learned counsel submits that such allegation is not supported by any cogent or independent evidence and no recovery or 4 corroborative material has been placed on record to substantiate the said claim. 7. It is further submitted that the appellant has been in judicial custody since 04.07.2025 and has undergone substantial incarceration. Despite the fact that the prosecution has cited as many as thirty witnesses, only eight witnesses have been examined so far, indicating that the trial is likely to take considerable time for its conclusion. Learned counsel submits that continued detention of the appellant would amount to pre- trial punishment. On these grounds, learned counsel prays that the appellant may be enlarged on bail on such terms and conditions as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State would oppose the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and submitted that the appellant Vijay Paswan is implicated in the grave offenses under Sections 363, 370(A), 370(4), 376 IPC and Section 6 POCSO Act, arising from Crime No. 150/2024 at PS Bilaigarh, Dist. Sarangarh-Bilaigarh. The victim's consistent statements under Section 183 BNSS and before the court detail her forcible abduction on 24.04.2024 by four persons in a white car, rendering her unconscious, followed by forced marriage to Mintee Ram Yadav by accused Sanjay, Dr. Jagdish, Anita, Rekha, knowing her minority, and subsequent sale to co-accused Guru Prasad, where the appellant was present and she endured repeated rape, resulting in pregnancy. Recovery on 27.06.2025 from Guru Prasad's custody, supported by medical evidence, school records, birth certificate proving minority (17 5 years 5 months), and pending DNA reports of the newborn, form an unbroken chain establishing the appellant's complicity beyond doubt. Granting bail would undermine justice in this heinous POCSO case involving a minor's trafficking and sexual exploitation, risking witness tampering, flight, or further harm, especially with strong prosecutorial evidence including victim/witness statements and no interference warranted in the trial court's reasoned rejection dated 20.11.2025. The impugned order is legal, justified, and backed by sufficient material; hence, the appeal deserves dismissal. 9. We have heard the learned appearing for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the records with utmost circumspection. 10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly nature of allegation, material collected during the investigation against the present appellant, and the fact that prosecutrix's testimony naming the appellant emerged for the first time in her examination-in-chief before the trial court, with no prior mention in her statements under Section 161 CrPC or Section 164 CrPC (now Section 183 BNSS), casting doubt on the allegation of his direct involvement in the sale of the minor for Rs.35,000/- alongside Sanjay Kumar Verma and Dr. Jagdish Verma lacking independent corroboration, recovery evidence, or material linking him beyond her uncorroborated word. While the offenses under Sections 363, 370A, 370(4), 376 IPC and Section 6 POCSO Act are grave, the appellant's role appears secondary to main accused Sanjay and Guru Prasad; he has no criminal antecedents, has 6 endured over 18 months' incarceration since 04.07.2025 despite only 8 of 30 witnesses examined, and trial completion is not imminent. Balancing these with the risk of tampering mitigated by conditions and final adjudication of the case will take its own time, therefore, without commenting anything on merits of the case, the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant dated 20.11.2025 is hereby set aside and the appeal is allowed. 11. Let the appellant- Vijay Paswan involved in Crime No. 150/2024 registered at Police Station Station Bilaigarh, District Sarangarh- Bilaigarh Chhattisgarh seeking bail for offences under Sections 363, 370A, 370(4), 376 of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, shall be released on bail on his executing bail bond to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court with two local sureties, on following conditions :- (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; (ii) He shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial; (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; and, (iv) He shall not involve himself in any offence of similar nature in future. 7 12. The trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same expeditiously preferably within a period of six months from the date of production of certified copy of this order and the appellant shall cooperate in the expeditious disposal of the trial and if he fails to appear or take unnecessary adjournment, the trial Court will be at liberty to cancel his bail bonds and take him in custody. 13. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Anu