1 2026:CGHC:12692 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 1825 of 2026 1 - Rajendra Prasad Upadhyay S/o Late Bhagwati Prasad Upadhyay Aged About 51 Years R/o Barsoor, Ward No. 14,p.S. Barsoor, District- Dantewada C.G. 2 - Smt. Shakun Upadhyay W/o Rajendra Prasad Upadhyay Aged About 54 Years R/o Barsoor, Ward No. 14, P.S. Barsoor, District- Dantewada C.G. ... Applicants versus State of Chhattisgarh through Police Station Badanji, District Bastar C.G. … Respondent For the petitioner : Mr. Manish Nigam, Advocate For the State : Mr. Tarkeshwar Nande, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Order on Board 17.03.2026 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 in Crime No.04/2026 registered at Police Station ALLENA ANNAJEE RAO Digitally signed by ALLENA ANNAJEE RAO Date: 2026.03.18 17:30:53 +0530 2 Badanji, District Bastar (CG) for the offences under Sections 137(2), 87, 49, 55, 65(1) of the BNS and Sections 4, 6 & 17 of the POCSO Act, 2012. 2. As per the prosecution case, on 06.01.2026 the complainant filed a report stating that her minor daughter aged about 15 years 10 months went missing on 05.01.2026. On such report, missing case was registered and during investigation, the victim was recovered on 29.01.2026. Co-accused, Sagar Prasad @ chiku enticed away the victim and kept her at his residence in Barsoor where he forcibly committed sexual assault. The allegation against the applicants are that they are parents of the main accusedand actively assisted their son in keeping the minor girl in their control despite knowing she was a minor. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the main allegations are against accused Sagar Prasad. The applicants have provided accommodation and there is no specific allegation that they have actively participated in enticement or the alleged sexual offence. He submits that the victim has voluntarily accompanied the main accused Sagar Prasad and stayed with him for a period of 23 days without raising any alarm. There exists an old dispute between the two families, who belong to the same caste. He further submits that though the prosecutrix is stated to be minor, yet the evidence of her correct age has not been proved. He submits that applicant no.1 is a government servant and applicant no.2 is a house-maker; they are in jail since 31.01.2026; charge sheet has not yet been filed and 3 there is no immediate possibility of disposal of the case, therefore, the applicants may be enlarged on bail. 4. Per contra, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the victim was minor at the time of incident and she was in custody of the applicants for about 24 days. 5. On 11.03.2026 the victim along with her mother appeared through VC from the concerned DLSA and raised objection to grant bail. 6. Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties; the over all facts and circumstances of the case especially the fact that main accused is absconding and the charge sheet has not been filed, I am not inclined to release the applicants on regular bail, at this stage. Accordingly, their bail application is rejected. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Rao