1 CGHC010161242026 2026:CGHC:28568 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 3938 of 2026 David Kumar S/o Late Devraj Kumar Aged About 40 Years Resident of Rohinipuram Near Washudev Hospital P.S. D.D. Nagar District- Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer Police Station - Purani Basti District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. C.R. Sahu, Advocate For Non-Applicant : Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 09.07.2026 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 224/2025 registered at Police Station Purani Basti, Durg – Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 4, 5, 7 of the Immortal Traffic Prevention Act. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that an informant reported that some individuals were engaging in prostitution in a house near KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 Italia House, Bhatagaon. Following this information, police from the Purani Basti police station, along with witnesses, surrounded the house, forced the door open, and entered, where they found four girls, including the pointer. Upon searching the girls as per protocol, they recovered three 500 notes, given by the pointer, ₹ for prostitution. Some intact and used condoms were found in their bags and in other rooms of the house. Furthermore, during interrogation of the girls and the mobile phone recovered from them, they revealed that the mobile phone belonged to accused David Kumar, and some incriminating chats were also found on it. It was also learned that accused David had rented the house and, in consultation with another accused, negotiated rates with clients for prostitution. The house where the women were caught while taking action in relation to prostitution, is said to be in the possession of accused David and he has taken the said house on rent, no credible document has been produced by the applicant to prove that he had sublet the said house to anyone else. Hence, the aforesaid offence has been registered against the present applicant and other co-accused persons. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The applicant was not present at the spot at the time of the alleged raid, and no incriminating article or money has been recovered from his possession. The prosecution case against the applicant is primarily founded on the statements of the co-accused, the 3 alleged disclosure made by the women apprehended at the premises, and certain chats allegedly recovered from a mobile phone, the authenticity, admissibility and evidentiary value of which are matters to be tested during trial. Merely because the premises were allegedly taken on rent by the applicant does not, by itself, establish that he was managing or knowingly permitting the premises to be used for prostitution. He further submitted that though there is one criminal antecedent of the applicant registered at Police Station D.D. Nagar, Raipur bearing Crime No. 616/2022 for commission of offence under Section 376(2)(f), 376(2)(n), 506 of IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act, but in the said case, which was registered as Special Case No.12/2023, the applicant has already been acquitted on 23.09.2025 by the concerned trial Court. He further submits that the applicant is in jail since 04.04.2026 and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bail and however, fairly submits that the charge-sheet has already been filed. He also does not dispute the submission advanced on behalf of the applicant that, although there was one criminal antecedent against the applicant, but, the applicant has already been acquitted in the said case by the concerned trial Court vide judgment dated 23.09.2025. He, however, submits that considering the gravity and nature of the allegations in the present case, the application for grant of bail deserves to be rejected. 4 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the allegations, the material available on record, the fact that the charge-sheet has already been filed, the period of incarceration of the applicant since 04.04.2026, the fact that the applicant has already been acquitted in the only criminal case pointed out by the prosecution registered at Police Station D.D. Nagar, Raipur bearing Crime No. 616/2022 for commission of offence under Section 376(2)(f), 376(2)(n), 506 of IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act, and further considering that the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion, this Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case for grant of regular bail. At this stage, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is inclined to allow the present bail application. Accordingly, the application is allowed. 7. Let the Applicant- David Kumar, involved in Crime No. 224/2025 registered at Police Station Purani Basti, Durg – Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 4, 5, 7 of the Immortal Traffic Prevention Act, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be 5 open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 351 of BNSS. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. 8. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information and compliance. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Chandra/kunal