Chhattisgarh High Court
MCRC/8657/2026 of BALRAM SAHU Vs THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH on 11 October 2026
2026:CGHC:44035 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 8657 of 2026 Balram Sahu S/o Shri Ramesh Kumar Sahu Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Mudhipar Thana- Bilha, Distt- Bilaspur (C.G.) --- Applicant versus The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police
CGHC010362292026
2026:CGHC:44035
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No. 8657 of 2026
Balram Sahu S/o Shri Ramesh Kumar Sahu Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Mudhipar Thana- Bilha, Distt- Bilaspur (C.G.)
--- Applicant
versus
The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Bilha, Distt- Bilaspur (C.G.)
--- Non-Applicant
For Applicant
: Shri Sunil Sahu, Advocate.
For Non-applicant/State : Shri Sourabh Sahu, Panel Lawyer (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAKESH MOHAN PANDEY)
Order on Board
12/10/2026
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. The applicant has preferred the First bail application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No.240/2026, registered at Police Station (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 64(1), 351(3), 331, 3(5) of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 (for short, the BNS) and 3/4(1), 5(j)(ii) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (in short, the POCSO Act, 2012).
2. Case of the prosecution, in nutshell, is that on 08.01.2026 at about 11:00 hours, while the victim was alone in her house, the applicant came there and committed forcible sexual assault on her. It is also alleged that the victim conceived and she was provided the abortion pills and when her health condition deteriorated, she was taken to the hospital Based on these allegations, the aforesaid offence was registered against the present applicant.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant would submit that there was consensual relationship between the victim and the applicant; her age was around 18 years on the date of incident and there was delay in registration of F.I.R. It is also argued that the victim has already been examined and she has partially supported the case of the prosecution. He would further contend that the applicant is in jail since 04.05.2026 and conclusion of trial may take some considerable time. He would, therefore, pray for grant of bail to the applicant.
4. On the other hand, learned State counsel would oppose the bail application and submit that the victim supported the case of the prosecution and has made serious allegation of sexual assault on her and age of the prosecutrix was below 18 years on the date of incident, therefore, the bail application of the present applicant deserves to be rejected.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.
6. Victim’s mother appeared through virtual mode and has raised serious objection in grant of bail to the applicant.
7. Having considered the contents of F.I.R. and the deposition of the victim wherein she has made serious allegations of forcible sexual assault on the pretext of marriage and subsequently she conceived and the age of the victim at the time incident, I am not inclined to allow the instant bail application. Accordingly, the first bail application is liable to be and is hereby rejected.
Sd/-
(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)
JUDGE Anjani