1 CGHC010306762026 2026:CGHC:40816 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 7406 of 2026 Raja @ Danish Khalifa S/o Md. Samim Ahmed, Aged About 19 Years R/o - Ghutrapara, Police Station And Tehsil - Ambikapur, District - Sarguja (C.G.). ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station - Kamleshwarpur, District - Surguja (C.G.). ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Ms. Jigyasa Singh, Advocate For Non-Applicant : Mr. Kawaljeet Singh Saini, Deputy Government Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 18/09/2026 1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No19/2026, registered at Police Station Kamleshwarpur, District – Surguja for the offence punishable under Sections 137(2), 64(2)(m), 3(5) & 87 of BNS and Sections 5(L), 6 of POCSO Act. 2. As per the case of the prosecution, a missing complaint was lodged by the father of the minor victim on 11.04.2026 and subsequently, the victim was recovered on 14.04.2026, her statement was recorded where she stated that about six months prior to the incident, the applicant/accused Raja alias Danish came into contact with the minor victim near the Tiger Point forest area and committed rape upon her on 2 the false pretext of marriage. Subsequently, on 10.04.2026, the applicant/accused Raja alias Danish, along with co-accused Arman Ansari and Rajab Iqbal, arrived at Mainpat and induced the victim as well as one Satya Yadav to accompany them to Pune, Maharashtra, under the enticement of higher wages. They were accommodated in a factory premises at Pune, where the applicant/accused Raja alias Danish again committed rape upon the minor victim against her will on the false promise of marriage. On the basis of such allegations, the police arrested the present applicant. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the victim along with her two friends, accompanied by the present applicant and two other co-accused persons, had gone to Pune, Maharashtra, in search of livelihood, where they stayed for about 3 to 4 days, and subsequently she was recovered by the police. She would further submit that in the present case, the investigation has been completed and charge- sheet has already been filed; the applicant is languishing in jail since 14.04.2026; and the victim has already been examined before the learned trial Court, wherein she did not level any allegations against the applicant and specifically testified that she had gone to Pune of her own volition along with her friends. Though the victim and her parents have objected to the grant of bail, looking to the material on record and the deposition of the victim, the applicant deserves to be enlarged on regular bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel would oppose the bail application and submit that at the time of the incident, the victim was aged about 17 years and 11 months, being a minor, and serious allegations have been levelled against the applicant; therefore, he is not entitled to grant of regular bail. 5. On 08.09.2026, the complainant/victim along with her parents appeared before this Court through the District Legal Services Authority (DLSA), Surguja, and strongly objected to the grant of bail to the applicant. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary as well as the material available on record. 3 7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly that the investigation is complete and charge-sheet has already been submitted; the applicant is in custody since 14.04.2026; the victim has already been examined before the learned trial Court where she has not supported the case of the prosecution and turned hostile, denying the suggestions put forth by the prosecution, this Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, is of the considered view that a fit case for grant of regular bail is made out. Accordingly, the bail application filed by the applicant is allowed. 8. It is directed that in the event of the applicant executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court, he shall be released on bail, on following conditions :- (i) he 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, (ii) he shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial, and (iii) he shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to him by the said Court till disposal of the trial. The observation made hereinabove is for the purpose of deciding this bail application only, the trial Court shall decide the case on its own merits. Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE Nadim