1 CGHC010283412026 2026:CGHC:36666 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 1171 of 2026 Sandeep Kumar Agrawal S/o Omprakash Agrawal Aged About 40 Years Caste Agrawal R/o Village Hardibazar, Dipka Road, P.S. Hardibazar, District- Korba (C.G.) ... Applicant. Versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Katghora, Civil And Revenue, District- Korba (C.G.) ... Respondent(s). For Applicant : Mr. Rishikant Mahobia, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Anish Tiwari, Dy. GA. For Victim 'A' : Mr. Anupam Upadhyaya, Advocate with Victim 'A' and her father (In Person) (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi ) Order on Board 17/08/2026 1. This is the Third anticipatory bail application filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). The earlier two bail applications of the applicant were rejected on merits by this Court vide orders dated 10.04.2024 in MCRCA No.219/2024 and 25.06.2024 in MCRCA No.454/2024, respectively. Digitally signed by AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI DN: cn=AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, ou=HIGH COURT, o=HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, st=Chhattisgarh, c=IN Date: 2026.08.18 10:43:43 +0530 2 2. The applicant has filed this application for grant of anticipatory bail as he is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.62/2024 registered at Police Station Katghora, District Korba (C.G.) for commission of offence punishable under Sections 354 & 354 (a) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 8, 10 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012. 3. Prosecution case, in a nutshell, is that the applicant was posted as Head Master at the Primary Ashram Shala, Gharipakhna, District Korba. It is alleged that on 08.02.2024, the Superintendent of the Tribal Girls' Hostel, Gharipakhna, lodged a written complaint against the applicant alleging that on 16.12.2023, two minor girls studying in Class 5 at the aforesaid school reported that the applicant had inappropriately touched them on 15.12.2023. They further alleged that the applicant used to ask them whether they were menstruating, show them obscene pictures on his mobile phone, and ask them to taste the urine of boys and girls. It is also alleged that the applicant told them to go on a picnic, warning that 10 marks would be deducted for anyone who failed to attend, and stating that those who went would all bathe together in a pond tied to a rope. Based on these facts, the present FIR was registered against the applicant under Sections 354 and 354-A of the IPC, as well as Sections 8, 10, and 12 of the POCSO Act. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that although the FIR for the alleged incident was lodged on 08.02.2024, but the statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. were recorded by the police earlier on 06.02.2024 and this fact disclosed only after the filing of the charge-sheet. He further submits that while the alleged incident is said to have occurred on 15.12.2023, was allegedly narrated to the hostel warden on 16.12.2023, and was reported to 3 the authorities of the Tribal Department on 17.12.2023, but the FIR was lodged only on 08.02.2024 with huge delay. As such, there are significant procedural infirmities and delay in the criminal proceedings. He also submits that the applicant is suffering from various medical ailments due to a mishap, the charge-sheet has already been filed and the applicant is a sincere teacher, therefore, there is no risk of him absconding. Hence, it is prayed that anticipatory bail be granted to the applicant. 5. Per contra, the learned State counsel submits that after the complaint before the Authorities of the Tribal Department, an enquiry was conducted by a team of Government officials who found the allegations against the applicant to be true. He further submits that the offences remain unchanged in the charge-sheet. Lastly, he submits that, being a teacher, such conduct by the applicant cannot be taken lightly, and his earlier anticipatory bail applications have already been rejected on merits twice. Therefore, this application deserves to be rejected. 6. Mr. Anupam Upadhyaya, Advocate with Victim 'A' and her father present before the Court in person. Victim and her father stated no objection in respect of present anticipatory bail application. 7. Notice issued to victim 'B' is reported to be served upon her grandfather, however, neither they are present in person or through Video Conferencing (V.C.), nor are they represented by any counsel. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary and earlier orders passed in anticipatory bail applications. 9. This is the third anticipatory bail application. The first bail application was rejected on 10.04.2024, and the second anticipatory bail application was rejected on 25.06.2024. Both earlier applications were heard and rejected on 4 merits, particularly on the ground that an enquiry conducted by a four- member team of Government officials found the allegations against the applicant to be true. Moreover, one of the victims supported the prosecution case in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Further, mere filing of the charge-sheet does not constitute a material change in circumstances so as to entitle the applicant to the grant of bail. 10. In view of the above, and further considering the allegations levelled against the applicant, who is a Teacher, as well as the fact that his earlier two bail applications were rejected on merits, this Court does not find the present case to be fit for the grant of anticipatory bail. 11. Accordingly, this anticipatory bail application is rejected. 12. Pending application(s) if any stands disposed of. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Ajay