1 2026:CGHC:17434 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 3004 of 2026 Raju @ Shubham Rao S/o Venkat Rao Aged About 27 Years R/o Near Kohka Hanuman Temple, Mangal Bazaar, Chowki Smriti Nagar, Police Station Supela Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant. versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Smriti Nagar Supela Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondent -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For the Applicant : Mr. Aman Pandey, Advocate. For the State/Respondent : Mr. Tarkeshwar Nande, PL. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal, Judge Order on Board 16.04.2026 1. This is First Bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant, who has been arrested in connection with Crime No.1443/2025 registered at Police Station -Supela, District -Durg, (CG) for the offence under Sections 74, 238 of BNS, 2023 and Section 8 of the POCSO Act, 2012. 2 2. As per prosecution case, complainant (mother of victim/prosecutrix) has lodged a report alleging that on 04.12.2025, she and her husband had gone to work; when she returned home at 07:00 PM, they found that her minor daughter (aged about 9 years) sitting quietly in the shop. Upon questioning her, she told that while she was in the shop earlier that day, present applicant had entered in the shop and introduced himself as "Raju" and asked her if she would like to look at a mobile phone; when she replied in the affirmative, he (applicant) showed her an obscene video clip on his mobile phone and simultaneously with sexual intent, touched her chest. The Prosecutrix further stated that she managed to break free from his grasp and fled the scene. Based upon said report, FIR was registered against the applicant for the alleged offenc/crime. 3. Learned Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. There was financial transaction between the applicant and father of the prosecutrix, on account of which, false case has been instituted against the applicant at the instance of the mother of the victim. The applicant neither owns nor uses a smartphone which accessing the internet, playing videos or storing such material. The applicant is using only a basic, old-model keypad mobile phone, which is devoid of internet connectivity, multimedia features, camera, or any facility to store, download, or display 3 videos, therefore, the allegation that the applicant showed obscene videos to the prosecutrix on his mobile phone is inherently improbable and physically untenable. The mobile phone allegedly used in the commission of the offence has not been seized and does not form part of the charge-sheet. Venkat Rao, father of the applicant, had submitted a application before the concerned Superintendent of Police stating that he is in possession of the applicant’s mobile phone and prayed that the said mobile phone be seized and taken on record; however, no action has been taken thereon, a copy of the said application is annexed herewith as Annexure A-3. The allegations levelled in the FIR as well as the statements recorded under Sections 180 and 183 of the BNSS do not inspire confidence. Applicant is not having any previous criminal antecedent, he is in jail since 05.12.2025, there is no immediate possibility of disposal of trial, therefore, applicant may be enlarged on bail. 4. Per contra, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application of the applicant. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Pursuant to order of this Court’s dated 02.04.2026, victim alongwith her mother appeared through virtual mode from the concerned DLSA and they raised objecting in granting bail to the applicant. 4 7. Considering facts of the case, nature of allegation, submissions of counsel for the parties, particularly the submission that the applicant neither owns nor uses a smartphone; he is using old- model keypad mobile phone, which is devoid of internet connectivity, multimedia features, camera or any facility to store, download or display videos; the mobile phone allegedly used in the commission of the offence has not been seized and does not form part of the charge-sheet; further considering the contents of Annexure A-3 which shows that Venkat Rao, father of the applicant, had submitted a application before the concerned Superintendent of Police stating that he is in possession of the applicant’s mobile phone and prayed that the said mobile phone be seized and taken on record; the applicant is not having any previous criminal antecedent, he is in jail since 05.12.2025 and there is no immediate possibility of disposal of trial, therefore, I am inclined to allow this bail application of the applicant. 8. Accordingly, this bail application for grant of bail is allowed. It is directed that the present Applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court. The applicant is directed to appear before the trial Court on each and every date to be given to him by the said Court till completion of the trial. 5 9. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information/compliance. CC as per rules. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) JUDGE J/-