1 CGHC010268772026 2026:CGHC:35680 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 1168 of 2026 Vipin Bandhey S/o Shatruhan Bandhey, Aged About 20 Years (Surname- Bandhey Not Mention On The Cause Title,) R/o Village - Kheli, Police Station - Chandnu, Tahsil And District - Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. ...Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station - Lalpur, District - Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. ...Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Hemant Gupta, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Sangarsh Pandey, G.A. For Objector : Mr. Yogesh Kumar Chandra Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 12.08.2026 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 83/2026, registered at Police Station : Lalpur District - Mungeli (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 313, 376(1), 376(2), 34 of VAIBHAV SINGH Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2026.08.19 17:35:28 +0530 2 the IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of the protection of children from sexual offences Act, 2012. 2. As per the prosecution story, the victim lodged a report at Police Station Lalpur, District Mungeli, on 14.06.2026, stating that she had met the applicant through Instagram in the year 2023. Thereafter, the applicant took her from Mungeli to Raipur on the pretext of attending his sister’s marriage and celebrating New Year’s Eve. On 10.01.2024, the applicant again took the victim from Mungeli to Raipur, where he allegedly gave her a cold drink mixed with an intoxicating substance and established physical relations with her. About twenty days thereafter, the victim informed the applicant that she had missed her menstruation. The applicant’s mother thereafter called the victim and took her to Dr. Ashutosh @ Pintu, who prescribed certain medicines, resulting in miscarriage. Subsequently, the applicant took the victim to Shakti Mata Temple, introduced himself as her husband, and solemnized marriage with her. Thereafter, the applicant allegedly represented to the victim that he was a minor and assured her that he would take her to his home after attaining majority. During this period, they again established physical relations, as a result of which the victim became pregnant again. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, the FIR has been registered against the applicant for the alleged offence. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the victim had met the applicant at a marriage ceremony where both their families were invited, and thereafter they exchanged their mobile numbers and Instagram IDs and developed a consensual relationship. It is further 3 submitted that, upon allegations regarding the victim’s pregnancy and subsequent abortion, her family got an ultrasound/sonography conducted, wherein the doctor opined that there was no pregnancy, foetus, or any sign or symptom of abortion, and the said medical report was also supplied by the victim’s mother to a member of the applicant’s family. It is further submitted that, despite the aforesaid circumstances, the families of both parties mutually decided to solemnize their marriage, for which the marriage programme was fixed from 12.04.2024 to 14.04.2024, and marriage invitation cards from both sides were prepared. Learned counsel further submits that the applicant is pursuing BBA at Anjaneya University and had passed Class 10th in the year 2022, and his mark-sheet dated 14.05.2022 is on record. It is further submitted that, when all arrangements for the marriage had been made, a complaint was submitted before the Project Officer, Integrated Child Development Project, Bemetara, pursuant to which the proposed marriage was stopped by the concerned department, and the relevant documents obtained under RTI have been annexed. Learned counsel submits that being aggrieved by the cancellation of the proposed marriage, the present FIR has subsequently been lodged by the victim. It is also submitted that, as per the prosecution itself, the alleged incident is dated 10.01.2024, and on the said date the applicant was only about 17 years and 2 months of age and was himself a minor. It is therefore submitted that there is no incriminating material against the applicant connecting him with the alleged offence, no custodial interrogation is required, and the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail. 4. Learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that 4 the allegations against the applicant are serious in nature. It is submitted that the applicant allegedly administered an intoxicating substance to the victim and established physical relations with her, and thereafter continued such relations on the pretext of marriage, resulting in her pregnancy. The statement of the victim and the material collected during investigation prima facie support the prosecution case, therefore, applicant is not entitled for grant of bail. 5. In compliance of the order dated 27.07.2026 passed by this Court, the victim appeared through her counsel and raised an objection for grant of bail to the applicant. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the allegations against the applicant, the statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS, 2023, and the material collected during investigation, this Court finds that the allegations against the applicant are serious in nature. Prima facie, it appears that the applicant developed a relationship with the victim and, despite being aware of her age, established physical relations with her on the assurance of marriage. The victim has further stated that she subsequently became pregnant and that the applicant and his family initially agreed to solemnize the marriage, but the marriage was later called off after it came to light that the applicant was a minor. Thereafter, the applicant allegedly stopped responding to the victim’s calls and blocked her. The statement of the victim under Section 183 of the BNSS, 2023, along with the material collected during investigation, prima facie 5 indicates the involvement of the applicant in the alleged offence. Considering the nature and gravity of the allegations, the age of the victim at the relevant time, and the material available on record, this Court is not inclined to extend the benefit of anticipatory bail to the applicant. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is rejected. 8. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant – Vipin Bandhey, involved in Crime No. 83/2026, registered at Police Station : Lalpur District - Mungeli (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 313, 376(1), 376(2), 34 of the IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of the protection of children from sexual offences Act, 2012, is 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/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE vaibhav