1 2026:CGHC:4473 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 8916 of 2025 1 - Suraj Satnami S/o Ayodhya Prasad Aged About 18 Years R/o Ghoghranala, Mandal Para Ward No. 14, Champa District- Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) ( Surname Wrongly Mentioned In The Impugned Order As Tondon Instead Of Satnami And Residenc Is Mentioned As Per Impugned Order And Father Name Is Also Not Mentioned In The Impugned Order And District- Name Is Also Not Mentioned In The Impugned Order) --- Applicant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Champa, District- Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) --- Respondent MCRC No. 9213 of 2025 1 - Pradeep Kumar Satnami S/o Dilip Kumar Satnami Aged About 18 Years R/o Ghoghranala, Mandal Para Ward No. 14, Champa, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) (Name Wrongly Mentioned As Pradeep Manhar Instead Of Pradeep Kumar Satnami And Father Name Is Also Not Mentioned In Impugned Order And District Name Is Also Not Mentioned) ---Applicant Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Champa, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) --- Respondent MCRC No. 9088 of 2025 1 - Shanu Satnami S/o Shanti Lal Satnami Aged About 19 Years R/o Ghodhranala Dusra Para, Ward No. 13, Champa, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) (Name Wrongly Mentioned As Shanu Mirjha And Father Name Is VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Digitally signed by VAISHALI LUCKY NAGARIA Date: 2026.01.29 10:40:15 +0530 2 Also Wrongly Mentioned As Shanti Lal Mirjha Instead Of Shanu Satnami S/o Shanti Lal Satnami In Impugned Order And Residence Is Mentioned As Per Impugned Order) ---Applicant Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Station House Officer, Police Station - Champa, District - Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) --- Respondent MCRC No. 8970 of 2025 1 - Dipesh Kumar Kurre S/o Rohit Kurre Aged About 19 Years R/o Ghoghranala, Mandal Para Ward No. 14, Champa District Janjgir-Champa, C.G. (Father Name Is Not Mentioned In The Impugned Order And District Name Is Also Not Mentioned In The Impugned Order) ---Applicant Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station- Champa, District Janjgir-Champa, C.G. --- Respondent MCRC No. 8985 of 2025 1 - Anil Kumar Satnami S/o Dileran Satnami Aged About 18 Years R/o Ghoghranala, Mandal Para Ward No. 13, Champa District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) (Name Wrongly Mentioned In The Impugned Order As Anil Mahilange Instead Of Anil Satnami And Spelling Of No. Is Also Wrong As Bo. And Father Name Is Also Not Mentioned In The Impugned Order And Dist Name Is Also Not Mentioned) ---Applicant Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer Police Station Champa District- Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) --- Respondent MCRC No. 8964 of 2025 1 - Krishna Khute S/o Mukesh Kumar Khute Aged About 19 Years R/o Dipra Para Ward No. 14, Champa District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) (Spelling Of The Surname Wrongly Mentioned In The Impugned Order As Khunte Instead Of Khute And Residence Is Mentioned As Per Impugned Order And 3 Father Name Is Also Not Mentioned In The Impugned Order And District Name Is Also Not Mentioned) ---Applicant Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station- Champa, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) --- Respondent MCRC No. 8962 of 2025 1 - Shivam Satnami S/o Panchram Satnami Aged About 19 Years R/o Dipra Para Ward No.14, Champa District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) (Name Wrongly Mentioned In The Impugned Order As Shivam Banjare Instead Of Shivam Satnami And Resident Is Mentioned As Per Impugned Order And District- Name Is Also Not Mentioned In The Impugned Order) ---Applicant Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer, Police Station- Champa District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) --- Respondent (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Applicant : Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate For Respondent/State : Ms. Vaishali Mahilong, Dy.G.A For Objector Mr. Shashi Kumar Kushwaha, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 27.01.2026 1. Since the above-mentioned seven bail applications arise out of same crime number, they are clubbed and heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The applicants have preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as they have been arrested in connection with Crime No. 440/2025, registered at Police Station – Champa, District – Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 4 87, 70(1) of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita (for short, BNS),2023. 3. The case of the prosecution, is that, victim who is married lady in a temple in Beldarpara having children who live in an orphanage in Korba. Her husband has been left her for the past three to four months without informing her. She lives and sleeps in the Lord Shankar temple near Bandhava Talab Chowpatty and earns her living by begging from people. On 28.09.2025, after breaking the fast of Navratri by begging as usual, she was at her residence in the temple of Shankar Bhagwan Bandhava Talab and on 29.09.2025, late in the night, she suddenly got up from the temple and went to talk to her brother Jaishankar Chauhan on another mobile as she was unable to talk to him on her mobile. Then, between 02:30 to 04:00 in the night, in front of Doctor Nayak's hospital, near BDM Hospital, Patal Road, Chansha, two accused forcefully made her sit on their motorcycle and took her to a dark place near Pauni Pasari, in front of the new Nagar Palika, whereby the two accused and one accused already present there raped her by having physical relations with her one by one. Thereafter the report was lodged by the victim before the police station Champa and concern police station registered the FIR against the accused persons. Hence, this bail application. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that the FIR was initially registered against three unknown persons and during the course of investigation, the names of four co- accused persons were subsequently added. Bail applications of all seven accused persons are present before this Court. It is further submitted that as per the statement of the victim recorded under 5 Section 183 of the BNSS, she stated that on the date of the incident, at midnight, she had gone from the temple to Nayak’s Hospital. Thereafter, two persons allegedly forcefully took her on their motorcycle to a dark place near Pauni Pasari, in front of the new Nagar Palika, where they committed rape upon her. It is also stated that one accused who was already present at the spot also committed sexual intercourse with her, after which all of them fled away, the names of the present applicants does not find place in the said statement. Learned counsel further submits that the victim informed her brother, namely Jai Shankar Chouhan, who resides at Raipur, about the incident and money was transferred through PhonePe for lodging the report at the concerned police station. It is also contended that the victim was medically examined at Champa Hospital with her consent; however, as per the MLC report, no internal or external injuries were found. It is further contended that statements of three prosecution witnesses, namely the victim (aged about 33 years), her brother, and the doctor, have been recorded. A perusal of their statements does not disclose any specific allegation or overt act attributed to the present applicants. Copies of the said statements have been annexed with the bail application in MCRC No. 9088 of 2025. It is also submitted that the victim has given her no objection to the grant of bail to the applicants. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are in judicial custody and the trial is likely to take considerable time for its conclusion. Hence, prayer is made for grant of bail. 5. Learned counsel for the objector was specifically asked to explain how the names of seven accused persons were included in the FIR when the FIR was initially registered against only three unknown 6 persons and the statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS does not disclose the names of the present applicants. Learned counsel for the objector could not dispute the fact that the victim did not name any of the applicants in her statement before the trial Court. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the allegations, the fact that out of twenty prosecution witnesses only three witnesses have been examined so far, the contents of the statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS, the absence of specific allegations against the present applicants, the period of incarceration, and the likelihood that the trial will take time to conclude, this Court is of the considered view that the applicants deserve to be released on bail. 8. Let applicants, Suraj Satnami, Shivam Satnami, Krishna Khute, Dipesh Kumar Kurre, Anil Kumar Satnami, Shanu Satnami and Pradeep Kumar Satnami, involved in Crime No. 440/2025, registered at Police Station – Champa, District – Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 87, 70(1) of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita (for short, BNS),2023, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two local 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 open for the trial court to treat it as abuse 7 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. 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 vaishali