1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 3826 of 2026 Dimpi @ Rahul Izardar S/o Jiwanlal Izardar Aged About 42 Years (Wrongly Mentioned As 40 Years) (Aadhar No. 7257 1524 2424) R/o Ward No 25, Near Hanuman Mandir, Vinoba Nagar Boirdadar Raigarh Tahsil And District- Raigarh (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer, Police Station Chakradharnagar Raigarh District- Raigarh (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Hari Agrawal , Adv. For Respondent/State : Ms. Deepeshwari Mahilwar, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order On Board 14/05/2026 1. The victim appeared in person and recorded ‘no objection’ in granting bail to the applicant. 2. The applicant has preferred this 1st bail application under Section 483 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita Act 2023 for grant of regular bail as he is arrested in connection with crime No. 33/2026, registered at Police Station – Chakradharnagar, District- Raigarh (C.G.) for offence punishable under Sections 3, 4, 5, 5(1)(d)(ii) of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 and Section 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012. 3. In this case there are total 2 accused persons. As per the prosecution case, acting on information received on 01.02.2026, Police raided the residence of Santosh Soni in Kelo Vihar Colony, PS Chakrahar Nagar, SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Digitally signed by SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Date: 2026.05.15 11:19:16 +0530 2 District Raigarh. During the raid, co-accused Nagendra was found in a room with a woman. The investigation revealed that the applicant, Dimpy Ijardar, a tenant of the house of Santosh Soni, allegedly used the premises to run a brothel, bringing women there for the purpose of prostitution. Subsequently, FIR was registered for the said offence and the applicant was arrested on 02.02.2026. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the crime in question. He further submits that the victim has no objection in granting bail to the applicant. The victim has examined before the Trial Court and she has been turned hostile. The applicant is in jail since 02.02.2026, out of 14 prosecution witnesses, only 2 have been examined till date and the trial is likely to take time to be finalized, therefore, it is prayed that the applicant may be enlarged on bail. 5. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the bail application and submits that at the time of incident, the victim was minor. The bail application of other co-accused has already been rejected by this Court. The applicant has a history of two criminal cases under Sections 376 & 420 of IPC. Hence, looking to the nature of offence, the applicant may not be released on bail. 6. In this regard, learned Counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the applicant has already been acquitted of offence u/s 376 of IPC in the year 2013. 7. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence collected by the prosecution against the applicant, without commenting on the merits of the case, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail. 9. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Shubham