1 2026:CGHC:10413 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 1344 of 2026 Ashish Verma S/o Chainkumar Verma Aged About 22 Years (Wrongly Mentioned As Chaindas Verma), R/o Navagaon (Chinu), P.S.- City Kotwali, District- Mungeli (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, P.S.- Mungeli, District- Mungeli (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Akash Deep Sharma, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Aman Tamrakar, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order On Board 27.02.2026 1. On 20.02.2026, the victim’s father appeared before this Court through virtual mode from the concerned DLSA and objected in granting bail to the applicant. 2. This is the first bail application filed u/s 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No.428/2025 BHOLA NATH KHATAI Digitally signed by BHOLA NATH KHATAI Date: 2026.02.28 17:18:08 +0530 2 registered at Police Station City Kotwali, District- Mungeli (CG) for the offence punishable under Sections 67-B of the Information Technology Act, 2008, Sections 64(2)(f)(i)(m), 79 of BNS and Sections 4 & 6 of the POCSO Act. 3. As per the prosecution case, the applicant who is the brother-in- law (Jija) of the victim was well aware that the victim was a minor, yet he forcibly committed sexual intercourse with her. It is also alleged that the applicant posted objectionable obscene photos of the victim on his Instagram ID and made it viral on social media. Subsequently, on the report being lodged in this regard by the father of the victim, the applicant was arrested on 28.10.2025. 4. Learned counsel for applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He submits that the FIR does not contain any allegation of rape. The applicant has not made any obscene photo of the victim viral. He further submits that out of total 22 prosecution witnesses, only 5 have been examined, the applicant is in jail since 28.10.2025 and there is no likelihood of the trial to be concluded at the earliest. Therefore, considering all these facts, the applicant may be released on bail. 5. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, opposing the bail application submits that the victim was minor at the time of incident and she has supported the case of prosecution. He further submits that the applicant has two previous records and 3 considering the nature of offence, the applicant does not deserve to be released on bail. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the nature and gravity of offence and the material collected and available on record against the applicant, this Court is not inclined to release the applicants on bail. 8. Accordingly, the present bail application stands rejected. 9. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Khatai JUDGE