ANIL KUMAR LOHRA vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

CGHC010303502026 2026:CGHC:46728
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No. 7182 of 2026
1 - Anil Kumar Lohra S/o Muneshwar Lohra Aged About 18 Years R/o Village Raro
Tola, Bholadamar, P.S. Dandai, Distt. Garhwa, Jharkhand.
... Applicant(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer (S.H.O.), P.S. Ramchan
drapur, Distt. Balrampur Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh. .. Respondent
For Applicant : Mr. Vimal Pathak, Advocate
For Respondent/State : Mr. Akash Agrawal, P.L.

Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
Order on Board
04.11.2026
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. 27/2025, registered at Police
Station Ramchandrapur, District Balrampur Ramanujganj (C.G.) for
the offence punishable under Sections 137(2), 87, 64(2)(m) of BNS,
and 5(j)(ii) and 5(I)/6 of POCSO Act.
2 Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the applicant sexually
assaulted the victim, aged about 17 years and 8 months on the pretext
Digitally
signed by
JYOTI JHA
Date:
2026.11.05
10:43:12
+0530
marriage. The FIR was lodged against the applicant by the father of
the victim, pursuant to which the offences, as stated above, were

2
registered against him.
3 In pursuance of the notice dated 06.08.2026 issued to the victim,
today the victim along with her father appeared before this Court
through video conferencing from concerned DLSA and have raised
objection to releasing the applicant on bail.
4 Learned counsel appearing for the applicant would submit that the ap
plicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further sub
mits that the victim has already been examined before the trial Court
and she has not supported the case of the prosecution and she de
nied the suggestions put forth by the public prosectuor. It is also ar
gued that the applicant is in jail and has no criminal antecedents. The
age of the victim was around 18 years at the time of the incident and
there was a consensual relationship between them. No offence, as al
leged, was committed by the applicant. The applicant is in jail since
25.12.2025. He, therefore, prays for grant of bail to the applicant.
5 On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application
and submits that the victim was aged about 17 years and 8 months at
the time of the incident. In her statement recorded under Section 183
of the BNSS, she made allegations of sexual assault against the
present applicant. He further submits that the victim gave birth to a
child and the DNA test report has confirmed the paternity of the child
qua the present applicant. He would further submit that, as the victim
was a minor at the time of the incident, she falls within the definition of
a child under Section 2(d) of the POCSO Act and was not competent
to give consent. Therefore, he prays for rejection of the bail applica

3
tion.
6 I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case di
ary.
7 Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case,
particularly the fact that the victim has already been examined before
the trial Court and, in her statement, disclosed her age as 19 years on
08.05.2026 and she did not support the case of the prosecution,
having turned hostile, and further denied the suggestions put forth by
the learned Public Prosecutor, as well as the fact that the applicant
has no criminal antecedents, has been in custody since 25.12.2025,
and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, I am inclined
to grant bail to the present applicant. Accordingly, the bail application
is allowed .
8 Let applicant be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.
50,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the court
concerned with the following conditions:-
(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that
he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for
evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case
of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial
court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders
in accordance with law.
(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial
court on each date fixed, either personally or through his
counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause,
the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269
of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

4
(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail
during trial and in order to secure his presence,
proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS is issued and the
applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed
in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate
proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under
Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before
the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the
case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement
under Section 351 of BNSS. If in the opinion of the trial
court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without
sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to
treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed
against him in accordance with law.
Sd/-
(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)
Judge
Jyoti