1 2026:CGHC:25320 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 3747 of 2026 1. Anil Tandan, S/o Laxman Tandan, aged about 21 Years, 2. Sunil Tandan @ Sonsing Tandan, S/o Laxman Tandan, aged about 28 Years, Both are R/o Bhinbhouri, P.S. Sahaspur Lohara, Distt. Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. ...Applicants versus • State of Chhattisgarh, Through Police Station Mahila Thana, Distt. Kabirdham (Kawardha), Chhattisgarh. ...Non-applicant For Applicants : Mr. Bhupendra Shrivas, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Priya Sharma, Panel Lawyer. (Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal) Order on Board 22/06/2026 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicants who have been arrested in connection with Crime No.06/2026 registered at Police Station – Mahila Thana, District Kabirdham (Kawardha) C.G., for the offence punishable under Sections 74, 75(2) & 3(5) of Bhartiya Nayay Sanhita and Section 8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. 2. As per the prosecution case, on 20.02.2026, prosecutrix lodged a report at Police Station Mahila Thana, Kawardha, alleging that the applicants were PRIYANKA VERMA Digitally signed by PRIYANKA VERMA Date: 2026.06.22 16:05:06 +0530 2 running a kirana (grocery) shop. It is alleged that on 15.02.2026, at about 7:00 PM, when she went to the said shop, applicant No. 1- Anil Tandan, caught hold of her with sexual intent and thereafter applicant No. 2- Sunil Tandan, also came their and committed sexual assault upon her. On the basis of the said report, the aforesaid offences have been registered against the applicants. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are innocent persons and have been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that the applicants have not committed any offence. It is also submitted that the prosecutrix, aged about 19 years, has already been examined before the trial Court and has not supported the case of the prosecution. As per her statement, there was a dispute between the parties regarding recovery of money on account of credit dues, and due to the said dispute, the present false allegations have been levelled against the applicants. He also submits that the applicants are in jail since 06.03.2026 and that the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time. Therefore, it is prayed that the applicants be granted regular bail. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application. 5. Despite service of notice, prosecutrix did not appear before this Court. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the statement of the prosecutrix recorded before the trial Court and further considering that the applicants have been in custody since 06.03.2026 and that the conclusion of the trial is likely to take considerable time, without commenting on the merits of the case, this Court is inclined to release the applicants on bail. 3 8. Accordingly, the application is allowed and it is directed that the applicants shall be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.15,000/- each with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court. The applicants are directed to appear before the concerned trial Court on each and every date to be given to them by the said Court till disposal of the trial. It is made clear that any observation made by this Court in this order shall not affect the trial of the case. 9. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Priyanka