Chhattisgarh High Court
MCRC/6856/2026 of PANKAJ SARTHI Vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH on 8 October 2026
NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 6856 of 2026 1 - Pankaj Sarthi S/o Suniram Sarthi Aged About 18 Years R/o Ward No.- 18 Station Road Sakti Thana- Kotwali Distt.- Sakti (C.G.) ..Applicant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer, Police Station-
CGHC010275562026
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No. 6856 of 2026
1 - Pankaj Sarthi S/o Suniram Sarthi Aged About 18 Years R/o Ward No.- 18 Station Road Sakti Thana- Kotwali Distt.- Sakti (C.G.)
..Applicant
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer, Police Station- Pusour Distt.- Raigarh (C.G.)
... Non-applicant
For Applicant
:
Mr. Amit Sharma, Advocate
For Non-Applicant
:
Ms. Smriti Shrivastava, P.L.
Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 09.10.2026
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. Heard.
2. The victim appeared through Video Conferencing from DLSA Raigarh and raised no objection for grant of bail to the present applicant.
3. This is the 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. 142/2026 registered at Police Station Pusour, District Raigarh (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 64(2)(I), 64(2)(M) of the
Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 6 of the POCSO Act.
4. The prosecution story, in brief, is that the victim came into contact with the applicant through a mobile phone, and the applicant promised to marry her. On 28.08.2025, at about 1:30 p.m., the victim went to the house of the applicant, where they established physical relations, as a result of which she became pregnant. On 04.01.2026, she gave birth to a child at the Maternity Hospital, Raigarh. Thereafter, the applicant started beating her, compelling her to go to her parental home. Consequently, she lodged a complaint at Police Station Pusour, whereupon the police registered an offence under Sections 64(2)(I) and 64(2)(M) of the BNS and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. The applicant was arrested on 25.05.2026. Hence, the bail application.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant would submit that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. He would further submit that the applicant and the victim were acquainted with each other and were in a relationship, pursuant to which they established physical relations. It is contended that the applicant had promised to marry the victim and the physical relationship between them was consensual. He would contend that the victim has already been examined and, in her deposition, she has stated that the applicant is her husband and they got married in February 2025. He would further contend that a child was born out of their wedlock and the victim has denied the allegations of sexual assault against the applicant. He would submit that the applicant has no criminal antecedents; he is in jail since 25.05.2026 and conclusion of the trial may take some time, thus, he prays for grant of regular bail to the present applicant.
6. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the applicant is accused of committing a serious offence under Sections 64(2)(I) and 64(2)(M) of the BNS and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. She would, therefore, submit that the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the State and perused the case diary.
8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the allegations, and the fact that the applicant has no criminal antecedents, it is pertinent to note that the victim has already been examined as PW-1 before the learned Trial Court on 22.08.2026. In her deposition, the victim stated that the applicant is her husband and they got married in February 2025, and a child was born out of their wedlock. She has also denied the allegation of sexual assault against the applicant. Further, the applicant is in jail since 25.05.2026.
9. Taking into consideration the deposition of the victim, the absence of criminal antecedents against the applicant, and the period of incarceration already undergone by him, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.
10. It is directed that in the event of the applicant executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- each with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court, they shall be released on bail on the following conditions:-
(a) he shall make himself available for interrogation by the police officer as and when required; (b) he shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such fact to the Court; and
(c) he shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to a fair and expeditious trial. The observation made hereinabove is for the purpose of deciding this bail application only, the learned trial Court shall decide the case on its own merits. The deciding this bail application only, the learned trial Court shall decide the on its own merits. Sd/-Sd/- -
Sd/-
(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)
JUDGE Rekha