1 CGHC010284992026 2026:CGHC:40651 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 6804 of 2026 Suryakant Sahu S/o Neeraj Sahu Aged About 22 Years R/o Basti Rudra, Police Station Rudri, District- Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. (Description Mentioned As Per Charge Sheet) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Of Police Station Rudri, District- Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Shri Praveen K. Dhurandhar, Advocate. For Non-Applicant/State : Shri Dharmesh Shrivastava, Deputy A.G. Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 17.09.2026 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 No.12/2026, registered at Police Station Rudri, District Dhamtari (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 137(2), 87, 64(2)(m) of BNS and Section 6 of POCSO Act. and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Caste Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 2. As per the case of the prosecution, a missing report was lodged by the father of the victim on 08.03.2026 making allegations that his minor daughter, aged about 17 years 3 months was missing since Digitally signed by ALLENA ANJANI KUMAR Date: 2026.09.18 10:10:20 +0530 2 05.03.2026. Subsequently, the victim was recovered from the company of the applicant on 09.03.2026 and on the basis of which, FIR was lodged against the applicant, pursuant to which, the offences, as stated above, were registered against him. 3. Father of the victim appeared through V.C. and raised objection for grant of bail to the applicant. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant would submit that the victim has already been examined before the learned trial Court and she has not supported the case of the prosecution. It is also argued that the victim denied the suggestions put forth by the Public Prosecutor. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is in jail since 10.03.2026 and conclusion of trial make some considerable time. He, therefore, prays for grant of bail to the applicant. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel would oppose the bail application and contend that the on the date of incident, age of the victim was 17 years and there are serious allegations made against the present applicant, and therefore, the bail application deserves to be dismissed. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the evidence of the victim, who has already been examined before the learned trial Court as P.W.1, in which, she has not supported the case of the prosecution and that that the victim denied the suggestions 3 put forth by the Public Prosecutor and considering the fact that the applicant is in jail since 10.03.2026 and that the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, I am inclined to grant bail to the present applicant. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. 8. Let applicant- Suryakant Sahu involved in Crime No. 12/2026, registered at Police Station Rudri, District Dhamtari (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 137(2), 87, 64(2)(m) of BNS, Section 6 of POCSO Act and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, be released on bail on furnishing personal bond with two 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 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. 4 (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 provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Anjani