Chhattisgarh High Court
MCRC/5235/2026 of RAMA DHURVE Vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH on 23 July 2026
2026:CGHC:31654 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 5235 of 2026 1 - Rama Dhurve S/o Late Bechan Ram Dhurve, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Village Pandri (Dholpakhnapara), Police Station Raghunathnagar, District Balrampur, (C.G.), 2 - Smt. Sonamati W/o Rama Dhurve, Aged About
CGHC010222362026
2026:CGHC:31654
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No. 5235 of 2026
1 - Rama Dhurve S/o Late Bechan Ram Dhurve, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Village Pandri (Dholpakhnapara), Police Station Raghunathnagar, District Balrampur, (C.G.), 2 - Smt. Sonamati W/o Rama Dhurve, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Village Pandri (Dholpakhnapara), Police Station Raghunathnagar, District Balrampur,
(C.G.)
... Applicants
versus
State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Ramkola, District Surajpur (C.G.)
... Respondent
For Applicants
: Mr. Praveen Sharma and Mr. Sanjay Yadav, Advocates For State/Respondent : Ms. Swati R. Gupta, P.L.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Order on Board 24/07/2026
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. This is first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 for grant of regular bail to applicants, who have been arrested in connection with FIR No.0008, registered at P.S.- Ramkola, District - Surajpur, (C.G.) for commission of offence punishable under Sections 137(2), 87, 65(1), 127(2) & 142 of Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 4, 17 of POCSO Act and Sections 3/181, 5/180, 146/196 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
2. Case of prosecution, in brief, is on 16.03.2026, a report was lodged by one Jagdhari Singh before Police Station Ramkola, District Surajpur, alleging that his daughter, who was stated to be aged about 15 years, had left the house on 14.03.2026 at about 03:00 PM on the pretext of visiting a relative and thereafter, did not return home. It is alleged that his daughter used to talk over mobile phone with the co-accused Sarat Kumar and, therefore, a suspicion was expressed that Sarat Kumar had enticed and taken away the prosecutrix. The present applicants are the parents of the co-accused and they are also involved in the alleged crime. On the basis of the said complaint, the police registered the offence against the applicants.
3. Vide order dated 23.06.2026, notice was issued to the victim/complainant, but after service of notice, victim/complainant did not appear before this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants submit that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. They further submit there is no material available on record to demonstrate that the applicants either induced, enticed, confined, concealed or wrongfully retrained the prosecutrix. They further submit that the applicants are in jail since 22.04.2026 and trial is likely to take some time, therefore, it is prayed that applicants may be enlarged on bail.
5. Learned State Counsel opposes the bail application filed by the applicants. She further submits that the victim/prosecutrix is a minor girl aged about 15 years and one day, and the applicants, being the parents of the co- accused have wrongfully confined the prosecutrix in their house and that the co-accused person (son of the applicants) has committed sexual assault with her. As such, the present applicants are also involved in the alleged crime.
6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary.
7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of the offence, and the material available on record, without commenting on merits of the case, I am not inclined to grant bail to the applicants.
8. Accordingly, the present bail application is rejected. Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Prakash