Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 5827 (CHH)

BIKKI RAJWADE v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

MCRC/3146/2026 · 2026-04-14

Shri Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal

Transfer Petitionbody2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2026:CGHC:17228 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 3146 of 2026 1 - Bikki Rajwade S/o Maniram Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Kachhoud (Bazarpara), Police Station- Kelhari, District Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur (Cg) ... Applicant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer Police Of Police Khadgawan, District Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur (Cg) ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Ramsajiwan, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Vivek Sharma, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order On Board 15/04/2026 1. This is the first bail application filed u/s 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No.236/2025 registered at Police Station Khadgawan, District Manendragarh- Chirmiri-Bharatpur (CG) for the offence punishable under Sections 137(2), 64(2)(m) of BNS and Sections 4 & 6 of POCSO Act and Section 3(2-v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 2. As per the prosecution case, on 16.11.2025, the victim, without informing her parents, went to Manendragarh by bus, resided in a HEERA LAL SAHU Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2026.04.15 17:26:49 +0530 2 rented house and worked in an Aata Factory, and the victim knew the applicant. It is alleged that on 19.11.2025 at about 2:00 pm, the applicant came to her rented house and had physical relations with her and thereafter, many times the applicant made physical relations with her in many places. Lastly, the applicant had a physical relationship with the victim on 18.12.2025. Based on this, offence has been registered against the present applicant. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that the victim has not supported the case of the prosecution in her statement recorded under Section 183 of BNSS. He also submits that the applicant is in jail since 17.01.2026, and there is no likelihood of the trial being concluded at the earliest. Hence, considering all these facts, the applicant may be released on bail. 4. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, opposing the bail application, submits that the victim was a minor at the time of the incident and in the FIR and in the statement recorded under Section 180 of BNSS, she has stated against the applicant. The trial has not commenced yet. Therefore, considering the gravity of offence, at this stage, the applicant does not deserve to be released on bail. 5. The father of the victim appeared through V.C. from the concerned DLSA and raised objection to grant of bail to the applicant. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the nature and gravity of the offence and the 3 material collected and available on record against the applicant, and further considering that the trial has not commenced yet, without commenting on the merits of the case, at this stage, this Court is not inclined to release the applicant on bail. 8. Accordingly, the present bail application stands rejected. 9. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) JUDGE H.L. Sahu