1 CGHC010335932026 2026:CGHC:41524 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 8150 of 2026 1 - Sanjay Sahu S/o Dukaluram Sahu Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Kosa, Ward, No. 13, P. S. Mulmula, District Janjgir Champa C. G. ... Applicant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Station House Officer, Police Station Mulmula, District Janjgir Champa. C.G . ... Non-applicant For Applicant : Mr. Sachin Nidhi, Advocate For Non-applicant /State : Ms. Priya Sharma, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 24/09/2026 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. 278/2026, registered at HARNEET KAUR Digitally signed by HARNEET KAUR Date: 2026.09.25 11:14:21 +0530 2 Police Station Mulmula, District – Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) for offence punishable under Section 67B of IT Act, Section 79 of BNS and Section 15(1) of POCSO Act. 2. As per the case of the prosecution, on 22/06/2026, an information was received from National Centre for Missing and Exploited Children (NCNMEC) and FIR was registered against the present applicant on 16/07/2026 alleging that he has downloaded and viewed child pornographic video from the internet. 3. Mr. Sachin Nidhi, learned counsel for the applicant, would argue that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the offence in question. He would further submit that there is no criminal antecedents of the applicant; investigation has been completed; charge-sheet has already been filed and the applicant is in jail since 27/07/2026, thus, the applicant be released on bail as conclusion of trial is likely to take some time. 4. On the other hand, Ms. Priya Sharm, learned counsel appearing for the non-applicant/State, would oppose the bail application and submit that there are serious allegations against the applicant in the FIR, therefore, he is not liable to be released on bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary as well as the material available on record. 6. 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 3 27/07/2026 and further considering that the allegation against the applicant is that he downloaded and viewed objectionable video on his own mobile phone, 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. 7. 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. 8. The observation made herein-above is for the purpose of deciding this bail application only, the trial Court shall decide the case on its own merits. Sd/- Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Harneet