1 CGHC010323762026 2026:CGHC:37649 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 1381 of 2026 Pushpendra Kumar Goel S/o Shri Budhram Goel Aged About 43 Years R/o Village Kudekela P.S. Chhaal, District- Raigarh (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station- Chhaal, District- Raigarh (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Shri B.P. Sharma, Advocate. For Non-Applicant : Shri Sangharsh Pandey, GA. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 21/08/2026 1. The applicant has preferred this application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’), for grant of anticipatory bail, apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.186/2026, registered at Police Station Chhaal, District Raigarh (C.G.) for alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 64(2)(m) of the Bharatiya Nyaya KRISHNA KUMAR BARVE Digitally signed by KRISHNA KUMAR BARVE Date: 2026.08.24 12:59:17 +0530 2 Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNS’) and under Sections 4 & 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012. 2. As per the case of the prosecution, on 8.8.2026 the complainant lodged a written complaint with the police station to the effect that the applicant has committed rape with the victim, who is a minor girl, during the period from 25.12.2022 to 21.01.2026. Based on aforesaid allegation, the offence has been registered under Section 64 (2) (M) of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 and Section 4, 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 against the applicant and the police are in search of the applicant. Hence, the bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. He further submits that there is no dispute that the applicant and the victim are in near relationship and certain monetary transaction by and between the parties has taken place and thereafter disputes and differences have arisen in respect of return of the amount which has resulted into entry of victim and although no such incident as reported has taken place but in order to victimise the applicant herein, the other side has tutored the victim to make false statement against the applicant herein and documents filed not before this Court but also before the trial Court, irresistibly prove that the present case is abuse of process of court and abuse of process of law or at least reasonable and probable defence is available to submit that case of the prosecution is false 3 and baseless and misuse of provisions of the POCSO Act. The applicant had also approached the concerned bank authorities for providing the details of statement of account with respect to the amount transferred to applicant's bank account but the bank authorities have refused to accede to the Applicant's request. It is necessary to mention that the applicant had raised the issue with the concerned police station vide a written complaint alleging extortion and blackmailing, however, the police authorities failed to take formal steps to register commission of cognizable offence. The applicant was not being granted any acknowledgement and therefore the applicant was constrained to send the written complaint through registered speed post. It is further submitted that alleged incident has occurred in between 25.12.2022 and 21.01.2026, whereas report of alleged incident has been lodged only on 8.8.2026 without explaining such an inordinate delay. 4. Moreover, the applicant's case is one such case of blackmailing and extortion. The falsity in the version of the prosecution and the false report filed by the informant will be clear from the documents, particularly, the bank statements wherein the applicant has been harassed and blackmailed to transfer a sum of INR 35,00,000/- through various bank transfers demonstrated herein below- S. No. Date Cheque No. Amount 1 20.02.26 002126 5,00,000/- 2. 20.02.23 002127 5,00,000/- 3. 21.02.26 002129 5,00,000/- 4 4. 23.02.26 002128 5,00,000/- 5. 23.02.26 002130 5,00,000/- 6. 26.02.26 002122 10,00,000/- 5. From perusal of the said document, it would be clear that the applicant was harassed and blackmailed to be implicated in a false and fabricated cases and in this manner, the aforesaid amount was extorted from the applicant on various dates through various cheques. There is no dispute that the applicant and the victim are in near relationship and certain monetary transaction by and between the parties has taken place and thereafter disputes and differences have arisen in respect of return of the amount which has resulted into entry of victim and the other side has tutored the victim to make false statement against the applicant. Hence he prays to enlarge the applicant on anticipatory bail. 6. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant. 7. The Objector/victim appears before this Court along with her maternal grandmother and raises objection for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 9. In the case at hand, it appears that the applicant has alleged that an amount of Rs.35,00,000/- was paid/transferred by him through different bank transactions. The transactions referred to in the complaint include transfers of Rs.5,00,000/- on different dates and 5 a further transfer of Rs.10,00,000/-, totalling Rs.35,00,000/-. The applicant seeks to rely upon these transactions to contend that he was being blackmailed and that the present criminal case has subsequently been lodged against him. The aforesaid contention, however, cannot be examined in isolation at the stage of consideration of anticipatory bail. The factum of transfer of Rs.35,00,000/-, its purpose, the circumstances in which the amount was transferred, the relationship between the parties and the allegations of blackmail/extortion are all matters which require investigation and appreciation of evidence. The mere fact that such monetary transactions are reflected in the documents placed by the applicant does not, by itself, establish that the prosecution case is false. On the contrary, the material placed before the Court discloses serious allegations of sexual offence against a minor. The allegations relate to a prolonged period and involve offences punishable with severe sentences under the BNS as well as the POCSO Act. At this stage, this Court cannot undertake a detailed examination of the rival versions or record a finding regarding the genuineness of the allegations of blackmail and extortion. 10. It is also noteworthy that the applicant himself had approached the police authorities alleging blackmail and referring to payment of Rs.35,00,000/-. Thus, the existence and nature of the monetary transactions is itself a relevant circumstance requiring 6 investigation, rather than a circumstance which, at this stage, can be treated as conclusively demonstrating false implication. 11. The delay in registration of the FIR and the defence raised by the applicant may be matters for consideration at an appropriate stage on the basis of the evidence collected during investigation and trial. At the stage of anticipatory bail, considering the nature of the allegations, the age of the victim and the seriousness of the offences, this Court is not inclined to extend the benefit of anticipatory bail to the applicant. 12. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant - Pushpendra Kumar Goel, involved in Crime No.186/2026, registered at Police Station Chhaal, District Raigarh (C.G.) for alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 64(2)(m) of the BNS and under Sections 4 & 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012, is rejected. Sd/- Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Barve