1 2026:CGHC:20259 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 3418 of 2026 Raysila @ Dipika Yadav W/o Ramesh Yadav Aged About 30 Years R/o Sankarpur Ward No. 07, Rajnandgaon, O.P. Chikhli, P.S. Kotwali, Rajnandgaon, Distt. Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, P.S. Bortalav, Distt. Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Aditya Bhardwaj, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Ritika Verma, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 30.04.2026 1. Learned State counsel submits that the notice of the bail application has been served to the complainant i.e. Mother of the victim. 2. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as she has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 01/2026, registered at Police Station Bortalav, District : Rajnandgaon (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 61(1), 337, 338, 339 and 318(4) of the BNS, 2023 and 4, 21 of POCSO Act and 80 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2000. 3. As per the prosecution story, the mother of a 15- year-old minor girl (the victim) lodged an FIR at Chichola Chowki wherein she stated that in March 2025, her daughter began vomiting a local village doctor initially dismissed it as weakness. However, by September 2025, the victim informed her family of "movement" in her stomach. A sonography confirmed she was eight months pregnant. The victim revealed that a boy (Juvenile) from her village, with whom she had studied from Class 6 to Class 9, had sent her messages expressing his liking for her. She alleged that on February 12, 2025, during his sister's wedding, Juvenile took her to his new house and engaged in sexual intercourse with her against her will. According to the prosecution, a criminal conspiracy was hatched to conceal the birth Certificate and adoption. The victim’s aunt and uncle allegedly took her to Bhanupratappur, Kanker on the instruction of the complainant, to hide the pregnancy from the village. The victim was admitted to Krishna Hospital, Rajnandgaon, where she delivered a baby boy. It is alleged that Ravi Kumar Barve and his wife, Mona Barve (acquaintances of the victim), took the newborn to Dr. Kumud Mohabey Memorial Hospital for further treatment. They allegedly with hospital staff and management create a false record stating that Mona Barve had given birth to the child. The prosecution claims that Samuel Dhoke, along with other staff members like Geshu Dewangan and Raysila @ Dipika Yadav (Applicant), were 3 complicit in this conspiracy. They allegedly facilitated the creation of forged documents and a false birth certificate registered with the Municipal Corporation to legitimize the illegal possession of the child by the Barve couple, hence this bail application. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case and that there is no direct or circumstantial evidence available on record to establish her involvement in the alleged offences, it is further submitted that the applicant was working at Kumud Mohabey Hospital and was merely discharging her routine duties under the instructions of her superiors and the hospital management and had no role whatsoever in the alleged conspiracy relating to forgery of documents or illegal transfer of the child. It is also contended that the applicant had no knowledge that the child was born to a 15- year-old minor victim as the child was brought to the hospital along with a duly sworn affidavit submitted by co-accused Ravi Barve and Mona Barve claiming themselves to be the parents and the applicant acted in good faith relying upon such documents and the directions of senior doctors and hospital management. It is further submitted that the applicant did not derive any financial or material benefit from the alleged transaction and there is no allegation of any monetary gain or consideration having been received by her. It is also urged that the applicant is a woman having no criminal antecedents and has deep roots in society and is not a flight risk, and lastly it is submitted that the role attributed to the present applicant is not more serious than that of the co-accused persons 4 who have already been granted the benefit of bail by this Court in MCRC No. 1664/2026, MCRC No. 2137/2026 and MCRCA No. 180/2026 and on the ground of parity also, the present applicant is entitled to be released on bail. 5. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bail and submits that the allegations against the present applicant are serious and grave in nature, contending that as per the prosecution story the victim is a 15-year-old minor girl who became pregnant and delivered a male child at a private hospital and thereafter, in connivance with co-accused persons and hospital staff including the present applicant, the newborn child was illegally handed over to the co-accused and false records including a forged birth certificate were prepared to give a colour of legality to such illegal adoption, it is further submitted that from the statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS it is evident that the child was unlawfully transferred and the present applicant, being part of the hospital staff, was knowingly involved in facilitating the same and since the offences involve exploitation of a minor, illegal adoption and fabrication of official documents which are serious in nature and affect society at large, therefore considering the gravity of the offence, the role attributed to the present applicant and the material available on record, she is not entitled to be released on bail and the application deserves to be rejected. 6. When the matter was called for hearing, the victim appeared through video conferencing from DLSA, Rajnandgaon, and submitted that she has no objection if bail is granted to the 5 applicant. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 8. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of allegations levelled against the present applicant, the material available on record and the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, particularly the fact that co-accused Vijay Raj Nagwanshi has already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court in MCRCA No. 180 of 2026 vide order dated 25.03.2026 and co-accused Gesu Dewangan has also been granted regular bail by this Court in MCRC No. 2137 of 2026 vide order dated 25.03.2026 and considering that the case of the present applicant stands on similar footing to that of the aforesaid co-accused persons, coupled with the fact that the present applicant is a hospital staff member and a lady aged about 30 years and the role attributed to her is limited in nature, further taking into account the statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS as well as the fact that the charge-sheet has already been filed, the victim has appeared through video conferencing and has raised no objection and the trial is likely to take considerable time for its conclusion, this Court is of the view that it is a fit case to extend the benefit of bail to the present applicant. 9. Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant is allowed. 10. Let applicant – Raysila @ Dipika Yadav, involved in Crime No. 01/2026, registered at Police Station Bortalav, District : 6 Rajnandgaon (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 61(1), 337, 338, 339 and 318(4) of the BNS, 2023 and 4, 21 of POCSO Act and 80 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2000, be released on bail on her furnishing a 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 she 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 her counsel. In case of her absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against her under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure her presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicants fail to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against her, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the 7 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 her in accordance with law. 11. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal