1 2026:CGHC:6347 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 419 of 2026 1 - Gupendra Markam S/o. Mohan Lal Markam Aged About 21 Years R/o. Village Paisara, P.S. Farasgaon, District Kondagaon (C.G.) 2 - Dev Kumar Netam S/o. Laxminath Netam Aged About 27 Years R/o. Van Borgaon, P.S. Farasgaon, District Kondgaon (C.G.) ... Applicants versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Farasgaon, District Kondagaon (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicants : Mr. Raza Ali, Adv. For Respondent/State : Ms. Laxmeen Kashyap, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order On Board 04/02/2026 1. The applicants have preferred this first bail application under Section 483 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita Act, 2023 for grant of regular bail as they are arrested in connection with Crime No.113/2025, registered at Police Station – Farasgaon, District- Kondagaon (C.G.) for offence punishable under Sections 137(2), 70(2), 3(5) of BNS and Section 6 of POCSO Act. HEERA LAL SAHU Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2026.02.04 16:54:42 +0530 2 2. As per the prosecution’s case, it is alleged that on 22.03.2025, the applicants lured the minor victim and forced sexual intercourse with her and thereafter again on 01.09.2025, when the victim went to a ceremony, the applicants also took the victim in their car and made forcefully physical relationship with her. Based on this, offence has been registered against the present applicants. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the crime in question. He further submits that the family of the victim are habitual to make false complaints of rap,e and the same victim has earlier also lodged a similar nature of complaint against other accused persons. The prosecution has alleged that the applicants used to talk on phone and on Instagram with the victim, but the call details of the mobile phone do not belong to the applicants, and the same has also been mentioned in the charge sheet and the ID of Instagram has not been mentioned to establish the said allegations. The applicants are in jail since 04.09.2025, and the trial is likely to take time to be finalized. Therefore, it is prayed that the applicants may be enlarged on bail. 4. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the bail application and submits that the applicants committed a grievous offence with a minor girl, the victim has supported the case of the prosecution and out of 29 witnesses, only 3 witnesses have been examined, some important witnesses have yet to be examined; therefore, at this stage, looking to the gravity of the offence, the applicants may not be released on bail. 3 5. On 31.01.2026, the victim and her father appeared through V.C. from the concerned DLSA and raised their objection to grant of bail to the applicants. 6. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and overall evidence collected by the prosecution against the applicants, and also looking to the gravity of the offence, at this stage, without commenting on the merits of the case, I am not inclined to release the applicants on bail. Accordingly, the bail application filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023, is rejected. 8. Office is directed to sent a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge H.L. Sahu