BANWARI LAL @ BANNU EKKA vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

CGHC010365342026 2026:CGHC:46263
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No. 8898 of 2026
1 - Banwari Lal @ Bannu Ekka S/o Nandlal Ekka Aged About 26 Years
R/o Village Sonwahi, Out Post Latori, Police Station Jainagar, District
Surajpur Chhattisgarh
... Applicant
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Of
Police Station Bhatgaon, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh
... Non-applicant
For Applicant : Mr. Anil Kumar Gulati, Advocate
For Non-applicant
: Mr. Vivek Sharma, P.L.
/State
Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
Order on Board
02/11/2026
1. The applicant has preferred this 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. 66/2026, registered at Police
Station Bhatgaon, District – Surajpur (C.G.) for offence punishable

2
under Sections 137(2), 87 and 65(1) of BNS and Section 6 of
POCSO Act.
2. As per the case of the prosecution, a missing complaint was lodged
by the father of the minor victim on 09/04/2026 and subsequently,
the victim returned home on 14/04/2026, her statement was
recorded under Section 183 of BNSS on 29/05/2026. Subsequently,
police registered the aforesaid offence against the applicant.
3. Mr. Anil Kumar Gulati, learned counsel for the applicant, would
argue that victim has not made any allegation with regard to sexual
assault against the applicant in her statement under Section 183 of
BNSS. He would further contend that victim has given her consent
for grant of bail to the applicant. He would also submit that the
investigation has been completed and charge-sheet has already
been filed and the applicant is in jail since 27/05/2026, thus, the
appellant be released on bail as conclusion of trial is likely to take
some time.
4. On the other hand, Mr. Vivek Sharma, learned counsel appearing
for the non-applicant/State, would oppose the bail application and
submit that at the time of the incident, the victim was aged about 15
years and 7 months and therefore, the contention of consent of the
victim would be irrelevant as she was a minor. He would further
contend that the present applicant sexually exploited the minor
victim on the pretext of marriage, therefore, he is not liable to be
released on bail.

3
5. The victim appeared before this Court through video conferencing
from the concerned District Legal Services Authority (DLSA) and
has given her consent for grant of bail to the applicant.
6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused
the case diary as well as the material available on record.
7. A perusal of victim’s statement recorded under Section 183 of
BNSS would reveal that she has not made any allegation of sexual
assault against the applicant. Further her statement was recorded
before the In-charge of Women Counseling Center, Surajpur,
wherein upon being asked, she did not make any allegation of
sexual assault against the applicant.
8. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case,
particularly that the investigation is complete and charge-sheet has
already been submitted; the applicant is in custody since
27/05/2026; the victim has given her consent for grant of bail to the
applicant, this Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits
of the case, is of the considered view that a fit case for grant of
regular bail is made out. Accordingly, the bail application filed by the
applicant is allowed .
9. It is directed that in the event of the applicant executing a personal
bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the
satisfaction of the concerned trial Court, he shall be released on
bail, on following conditions :-
(i) he shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or

4
promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as
to dissuade him from disclosing such fact to the Court,
(ii) he shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair
and expeditious trial, and
(iii) he shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date
given to him by the said Court till disposal of the trial.
10. The observation made herein-above is for the purpose of deciding
this bail application only, the trial Court shall decide the case on its
own merits.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)
JUDGE
Harneet