Chhattisgarh High Court
MCRC/3880/2026 of PREM @ SHITAL PANIKA Vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH on 21 July 2026
2026:CGHC:31158 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRC No. 3880 of 2026 Prem @ Shital Panika S/o Dhan Say Dewangan Aged About 20 Years R/o Village Anjani, Pratappur, Anjani, Surajpur, Jajawal, P.S. Chandora, Tehsil Pratappur, District- Surajpur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State
CGHC010151142026
2026:CGHC:31158
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
MCRC No. 3880 of 2026
Prem @ Shital Panika S/o Dhan Say Dewangan Aged About 20 Years R/o Village Anjani, Pratappur, Anjani, Surajpur, Jajawal, P.S. Chandora, Tehsil Pratappur, District- Surajpur (C.G.)
... Applicant
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The P.S. Pasta District Balrampur- Ramanujganj (C.G.)
---- Respondent
(Cause title is taken from the CIS)
___________________________________________________________
For Applicant : Ms. Sonia Kuldeep, Advocate For State-Respondent : Mr. Amit Verma, PL
___________________________________________________________
Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Order on Board 22/07/2026
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 the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No.12/2025, registered at Police Station Pasta, District- Balrampur-Ramanujgan (CG) for the offence punishable under Sections 137(2), 64(2)(m) & 65 of BNS, Sections 4 & 6 of POCSO Act and Section 3(2-V) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
2. As per prosecution case, on 30.04.2025, father of the prosecutrix lodged a complaint at concerned police station alleging that his daughter was missing. Matter was reported and investigating commenced. During the course of investigating, prosecutrix was recovered from the possession of present applicant and applicant was arrested on 30.04.2025 and after completion of investigation, charge sheet has been filed against the applicant.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the applicant has not committed any offence and has been falsely implicated in the case. She further contended that the prosecutrix has been examined before the trial Court as PW-2 and in her statement, the prosecutrix herself stated that her age is 20 years and the applicant has not committed rape or any offence with her. Learned counsel further contended that the applicant is in jail since 30.04.2025, and the trial will take considerable time for its conclusion, therefore, the applicant may be released on bail.
4. Learned State Counsel opposes the submission made by learned counsel for the applicant.
5. Despite service of notice upon father of the prosecutrix, no one appeared on behalf of the prosecutrix/complainant.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, further considering that the statement of the prosecutrix recorded before the trial Court and further considering that the trial is likely to take considerable time, without further commenting on the merits of the case, this Court is inclined to release the applicant on bail.
8. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed and it is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court. The applicant is directed to appear before the concerned trial Court on each and every date to be given to him by the said Court till disposal of the trial. It is made clear that any observation made by this Court in this order shall not affect the trial of the case.
9. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Vasant