1 CGHC010263352026 2026:CGHC:31218 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.Cr.C(A) No.1158 of 2026 Dharamveer S/o Kunnoo Banjare Aged About 21 Years R/o Village - Jalli (Doda), Police Station - Fasterpur, Tehsil - Mungeli, District - Mungeli (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through - The Station House Officer, Police Station - Kunda, District - Kabirdham (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Paras Mani Shriwas, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Ritika Verma, PL. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order On Board 22.07.2026 1. The Applicant has preferred this anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of Anticipatory Bail, apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.242/2025, registered at Police Station – Kunda, District Kabirdham (C.G.) for alleged SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Digitally signed by SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Date: 2026.07.23 10:57:08 +0530 2 commission of offence punishable under Section 137(2) of BNS. 2. As per the prosecution case, on the basis of a report lodged by Rambharos Diwakar at Police Station Kunda on 22.12.2025, the present FIR was registered against an unknown person. It is alleged that the victim girl, born on 10.12.2008 and aged about 17 years and 12 days, who was residing with her grandfather at Village Mahka, went missing from her house on 15.12.2025 at about 10:00 PM without informing anyone. Despite search, she could not be traced, whereupon the complainant suspected that some unknown person had enticed her away from his lawful guardianship without her consent. During investigation, statements of the complainant and witnesses were recorded and call detail records of suspected mobile numbers 9381925624 and 7803982586 were obtained, which revealed their location at Village Jalli, District Mungeli on 15.12.2025 and thereafter activation in Karnataka. As per the prosecution, the Applicant allegedly enticed the minor girl and took her to Karnataka, where she is allegedly being illegally confined and her recovery is still awaited. Based on these allegations, the offence as mentioned above has been registered against the present Applicant. Hence, this application. 3 3. Learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that the Applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended that the Applicant has not been named in the FIR and his implication is only on the basis of suspicion arising from the mobile numbers allegedly used by him. It is further submitted that on the date of the alleged incident, the Applicant was present in his village and had received payment from Sardar for going outside the State for earning livelihood. It is argued that the Applicant and the victim belong to the same caste and community and were acquainted with each other through social functions, whereafter they exchanged mobile numbers and started talking, however, due to objection by the family members of the victim, the Applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that the Applicant himself appeared before the investigating agency during the course of investigation and there is no material against him except the alleged ownership of the mobile numbers. It is also contended that at the time of the alleged incident, the victim had already attained majority and no documentary evidence regarding her age has been seized in accordance with law. He lastly submits that trial is likely to take quite considerable 4 time for its conclusion, therefore, the present Applicant may be granted the benefit of anticipatory bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the application and submits that the victim has not yet been recovered. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Considering the submissions advanced by learned Counsel for the parties, the material available in the case diary, the nature of allegations, the fact that the victim girl is a minor aged about 17 years and 12 days as per the prosecution case, the allegation that she was enticed away from the lawful guardianship and taken to another State and further considering the submission of learned State Counsel that the victim has not yet been recovered, the custodial interrogation of the Applicant appears to be necessary for effective investigation and without further commenting anything on the merits of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant the benefit of anticipatory bail to the Applicant. 7. 7. Accordingly, the Anticipatory Bail application of the Applicant – Dharamveer, filed under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 in 5 connection with Crime No.242/2025, registered at Police Station – Kunda, District Kabirdham (C.G.) for alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 137(2) of BNS, is hereby rejected. 8. Office is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Priya