1 CGHC010312972026 2026:CGHC:40502 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 7517 of 2026 1 - Arvind Singh Rajput S/o Late Kailash Singh Rajput Aged About 33 Years R/o Fuljhar, P.S. Chilfi, Distt. Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. Presently R/o Bhathapaa, P.S. Lormi, Distt. Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Lakhan Singh Rajput S/o Fulchand Rajput Aged About 49 Years R/o Bhathapara, P.S. Lormi, Distt. Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicants versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Lormi, Distt. Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant For Applicants : Mr. Raviker Patel, Advocate For Non-Applicant : Ms. Priya Sharma, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 16.09.2026 1. This is the First bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicants who have been arrested in connection with Crime No. 281/2026 registered at Police Station : Lormi, District : Mungeli (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 74, 75(2), 332(C), 296, 115(2) and 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2026.09.16 18:21:54 +0530 2 Sanhita, 2023 and Section 8 of the POCSO Act. 2. The prosecution story in brief is that on 05.07.2026, when the prosecutrix and her mother were at home, the applicants came to their family shop seeking ciagrette and molested the mother and daughter. On the basis of written complaint, police lodged FIR and registered offence as stated above and arrested the applicants. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants were falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that prosecutrix has been examined before the learned Trial Court where she has not supported the case of prosecution. He also submits that the applicant - Arvind Singh Rajput has no criminal antecedents whereas applicant - Lakhan Singh Rajput has one criminal antecedent under Excise Act and they are in jail since 06.07.2026, conclusion of the trial may take some time, therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the present applicants. 4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposes the bail application of the present applicants and submits that the present applicants/accused molested the mother and daughter, therefore, the applicant is not entitled for grant of regular bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. It transpires that victim and her mother appeared in person before 3 this Court on 14.08.2026 and submitted that they have no objection for grant of bail to the applicants. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and from perusal of the evidence of the victim recorded before the learned Trial Court, it appears that victim has not supported the case of prosecution and denied the suggestions put forth by the public prosecutor. Also considering the fact that applicants have been in jail since 06.07.2026, the trial is likely to take sometime for its conclusion, I am of the opinion that the applicants are entitled to be released on bail in this case. 7. It is directed that in the event of the applicants executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court, they shall be released on bail on the following conditions:- (a) they shall make themselves available for interrogation by the police officer as and when required; (b)they shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such fact to the Court; and (c) they shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to a fair and expeditious trial. 4 The observation made hereinabove is for the purpose of deciding this bail application only, the learned trial Court shall decide the case on its own merits. - Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE A j i n k y a