1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 3593 of 2026 Raja @ Sangam Ratre S/o Lorik Ratre Aged About 22 Years R/o- Saja, District- Bemetara, (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station- Gandai, District- Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan-Gandai (C.G.) ... Non-applicant MCRC No. 4055 of 2026 Bhim Chaturvedi, S/o Bhagwat Chaturvedi (C.G.) , aged about 18 years, R/o Village Maharjpur, Police Station – Dhamdha, District – Durg (CG) (Cause title as per charge sheet) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station- Gandai, District- Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan-Gandai (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicants : Shri Shivendu Pandya, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Ms. Swati R. Gupta, Panel Lawyer (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE RADHAKISHAN AGRAWAL) Order on Board 24/06/2026 1. Since both the bail applications arise out of same Crime No.376/2025, therefore, they are being heard together and disposed of by this common order. 2. These are the first bail applications filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, the B.N.S.S.) for grant of regular bail to the applicants who have been arrested in Digitally signed by ALLENA ANJANI KUMAR Date: 2026.06.24 17:07:11 +0530 2 connection with Crime No. 376/2025 registered at Police Station – Gandai, District - Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan-Gandai (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 137 (2), 96, 65 (1) of of Bhartiya Nyay Samhita, 2023 (for short, the BNS) and Sections 04, 06 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short, the POCSO Act). 3. As per the prosecution’s case, the applicants are alleged to have established sexual relationship with the victims/prosecutrix. On the said act of the applicants, father of the victims/prosecutrix, lodged a report at the Police Station Gandai, District Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan- Gandai (C.G.). Based on this, offence under the aforesaid sections has been registered against the present applicants. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are innocent and have not committed any offence and they were falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that the victims have also been examined before the concerned trial Court and their statement is not reliable and no offence is made out against them. He also submits that the applicants are in jail since 28.10.2025 and that, trial is going on and it may take some time to conclude. On these premises, he prays for the grant of regular bail to the applicants. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that as per case of the prosecution, both the accused/applicants have committed sexual assault against the two girls (victims), who are minor at the time of offence, as is clear from the copy of statement of victim (P.W.4) (filed in M.Cr.C.No.4055/2026) and that of statement of father of the victim (P.W.1) (filed in M.Cr.C.No.3593/2026) wherein, they have clearly stated that the applicants have committed the offence, therefore, the 3 applicants do not deserve regular bail. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing 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 the offence and taking into account that the trial is going on, I am not inclined to release the applicants on bail. 8. Accordingly, the applications filed under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. are rejected. 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 Anjani