MUKESH RAM vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

CGHC010320262026 2026:CGHC:45316
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No. 7881 of 2026
1 - Mukesh Ram S/o Lav Kumar Ram Aged About 21 Years R/o Village
Bhelwadih Piparpara Police Station Balrampur District- Balrampur-
Ramanujganj (C.G.)
… Applicant
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer Police Station
Balrampur District- Balrampur- Ramanujganj (C.G.)
... Non-applicant
For Applicant : Dr. Prachi Diwan, Advocate
For Non-applicant
: Mr. Sourabh Sahu, P.L.
/State
Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
Order on Board
27/10/2026
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. 10/2026, registered at Police
Station Balrampur, District – Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) for
offence punishable under Sections 64(2)(M), 65(1) and 89 of BNS
and Sections 4(2), 5(j)(ii) and 5(h)(6) of POCSO Act.

2
2. As per the case of the prosecution, victim lodged report on
21.01.2026 before Police Station Balrampur and stated that from
the year 2021 till November 2025, the present applicant
continuously established physical relations with her on the
assurance that he would marry her, as a consequence of the same,
the victim became pregnant in September 2025 thereafter, in
October 2025, without the free consent and against the wishes of
the victim, the accused allegedly administered certain medicines to
her and caused the termination of her pregnancy thereafter, the
applicant stopped communicating with her and refused to marry
her. As per the said report, the aforesaid offences were registered
against the applicant.
3. Dr. Prachi Diwan, learned counsel for the applicant, would argue
that there was a love affair between the applicant and the victim
and the relationship between them was consensual in nature. She
would further contend that the victim has already been examined
before the trial Court wherein she has clearly stated that the
applicant and victim were staying together in a rented house for the
last 4-5 years and during that period, they maintained physical
relations and she conceived. She would also submit that the FIR
was lodged by the victim after attaining the age of majority. She
would lastly contend that investigation has been completed,
charge-sheet has already been filed and the applicant is in jail since
22/01/2026 and he has no criminal antecedents and out of 14
witnesses, only 3 witnesses have been examined till date, thus, the
applicant may be released on bail as conclusion of trial is likely to
take some time.

3
4. On the other hand, Mr. Sourabh Sahu, 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 a minor and
therefore, the contention of consent of the victim would be
irrelevant. He would further submit that serious allegations have
been levelled against the applicant with regard to sexual assault of
the minor victim, therefore, he is not liable to be released on bail.
5. Victim appeared before this Court through video conferencing from
the concerned District Legal Services Authority (DLSA) and raised
serious objection in 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. Having considered the fact that the victim lodged the FIR after
attaining the age of majority on 21/01/2026 and the victim has
already been examined before the trial Court wherein she has
stated that she was in a love affair with the applicant and they
resided together in a rented house for 4-5 years and established
physical relations and further considering that charge-sheet has
been filed, the applicant has no criminal antecedents and he is in
jail since 22/01/2026 and out of 14 witnesses only 3 have been
examined so far which shows that the conclusion of trial may take
considerable time, 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 .

4
8. 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
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.
9. 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/-
(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)
JUDGE
Harneet