Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 29510 (CHH)

HOHD. HAKEEM RAYEEN v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

MCRCA/1192/2026 · 2026-07-27

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 CGHC010271842026 2026:CGHC:32363 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No.1192 of 2026 1 - Hohd. Hakeem Rayeen S/o Bakruddin Aged About 35 Years R/o Village New Bus Stand Pendra Tahsil And P.S. Pendra Distt- Gaurela - Pendra - Marwahi (C.G.) (Name Of The Applicant Is Wrongly Mentioned In The Rejection Order) Applicant (s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Station In-Charge Police Station - Pendra Distt- Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi (C.G.) Respondent(s) For Applicant (s) : Ms. Najmi Begam, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Soumya Rai, Dy. GA Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 28.07.2026 1. This second anticipatory bail application filed under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the applicant, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.112/2026 registered at Police Station Pendra, District Digitally signed by R NIRALA 2 Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 74, 79 & 296 of BNS and Section 12 of POCSO Act. 2. The first bail application of the applicant was dismissed on merits vide order dated 15.06.2026 in MCRCA No.646/2026. 3. The prosecution's case, in brief, is that the victim lodged a written complaint alleging that on 07.04.2026, between 7:30 p.m. and 8:00p.m., while she was walking in front of her house, the applicant approached her on a motorcycle. It is alleged that the applicant stopped near the victim, forcibly caught hold of her hand, and attempted to compel her to accompany him. It is further alleged that the applicant touched the victim inappropriately and thereby outraged her modesty. The victim managed to escape from the clutches of the applicant and immediately informed her mother about the incident. Upon being confronted, the applicant allegedly abused the victim and her mother and fled from the spot when neighboring persons gathered, therefore FIR has been registered against the applicant. Hence, this bail application. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. She further submits that the victim had earlier made a complaint of a similar nature against the applicant, which was subsequently withdrawn on the ground that it was filed at the behest of her parents. She also submits that there is also delay in lodging the 3 FIR which has not been explained as such the present complaint is likewise false and motivated. Furthermore, since the investigation and trial are likely to take considerable time, she prays that the applicant is entitled to be released on anticipatory bail. 5. Per contra, learned State counsel vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and submitted that the applicant has raised the same ground as was raised in the earlier bail application which was dismissed on merits and no new ground has been raised. Therefore, the present anticipatory bail application of the applicant is liable to be rejected. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Considering the facts & circumstances of the case, gravity of offence, further considering that the ground, which has been raised by the applicant, was already raised in the earlier bail application and was already considered by this Court and the earlier bail application of the applicant was dismissed on merits on the same ground, as such I am not inclined to entertain this repeat bail application. 8. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant– Moh. Hakeem Rayeen filed under Section 482 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 involved in Crime No.112/2026 registered at Police Station - Pendra District- Gaurela-Pendra- 4 Marwahi (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 74, 79, 296 of BNS, 2023 and Section 12 of POCSO Act, 2012, is rejected. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Nirala