1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 130 of 2026 1 - Rajesh Kamde S/o Vamanrao Kamde Aged About 34 Years R/o Village- Tedava, Lanji, District Balaghat (M.P.). 2 - Smt. Laxmi Yadav W/o Shyam Bihari Yadav Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Toravakanpa, P.S. And District Mungeli C.G. ... Applicants Versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, P.S. - Gudhiyari, Distt. Raipur C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Applicant : Shri Arun Kumar Shukla, Advocate. For State : Ms. Supriya Upasne, Govt. Advocate along with Ms. Isha Jajodiya, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J Order on Board 03.03.2026 1. Apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No.55/2025 registered at Police Station Gudiyari, District Raipur for the offence punishable under Sections 137(2), 64, 143,144 and 61 BNS and Section 4&6 of POCSO Act, the applicants have filed the present anticipatory bail application. 2. As per prosecution case, on 21.02.2025 a missing report was lodged by the sister in law of victim that she is missing since 21.02.2025 in the night and her whereabouts could not be traced out. The police registered an offence under Section 137(2) of BNS and started 2 investigation. During investigation, the victim was recovered on 31.03.2025 from Chhatarpur (MP) from the possession of co-accused Babu Lal and after recording her statement, other offences were added. The allegation against the applicants is that, they are the persons who took the victim towards Jaipur and then Chhatarpur and sold the victim to co-accused Babu Lal and got her marriage performed with him. Some how she could make a contact with her brother and thereafter her brother went Chhatarpur along with Raipur Police and took her back. 3. Learned Counsel for the applicant would submit that there is no allegation against the applicants that they are involved in human trafficking or allegedly took the victim towards Jaipur and Chhatarpur. It is only the statement of Babu Lal on the basis of which they have been made accused. Victim has been examined before the trial court where she has not made any allegation against the applicants. Even she has denied the entire story of human trafficking. The applicants are the bread winner of their family. If they would be arrested, the livelihood of their family would be affected. Therefore, they may be granted anticipatory bail. 4. On the other hand the counsel for the State opposes the bail application and have submitted that from 183 BNSS statement of the victim it clearly reflects that present applicants are the main accused persons who took the victim towards Jaipur and thereafter Chhatarpur (MP) and sold the victim to co-accused Babu Lal for consideration of Rs.1,00,000/-. In her statement she disclosed the manner in which she was kidnapped by the present applicants and involved in human 3 trafficking. Looking to seriousness of the offence and the manner in which the victim was subjected to kidnap and offence of rape by the co- accused Babu Lal as well as human trafficking by the present applicants, the applicants are not entitled for anticipatory bail. 5. I have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the submissions made by the counsel for the parties, considering the nature of allegation, material collected during investigation, the seriousness of offence, the allegations leveled against the applicants and also considering 183 BNSS statement of the victim and her age, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicants. 7. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application of the applicants stand rejected. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge inder