ROSH KUMAR RAVI vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

CGHC010365442026 2026:CGHC:45079
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No. 8739 of 2026
1 - Rosh Kumar Ravi S/o Paras Nath Ravi, Aged About 48 Years R/o Village
Palgi, Police Station Trikunda, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.)
... Applicant(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer Of Police Station
Trikunda, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.)
... Respondent
For Applicant : Mr. Hariom Rai, Advocate
For Respondent/State : Ms. Monika Thakur, P.L.

Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
Order on Board
26.10.2026
The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section
1.
483 of the BNSS, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been
arrested in connection with Crime No. 28/2026, registered at Police
Station Trikunda, District Balrampur, Ramanujganj (C.G.) for the
offence punishable under Sections 137(2), 96, 87, 64(2)( > ), 142, 143,
144 and 3(5) of BNS and 6 of POCSO.
2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the applicant sexually
assaulted the victim, aged about 16 years, 8 months and 16 days on

2
the pretext of marriage. The FIR was lodged against the applicant by
the mother of the victim, pursuant to which the offences, as stated
above, were registered against him.
3. In pursuance of the notice dated 21.09.2026 issued to the victim, today
the mother appeared before this Court through video conferencing
from concerned DLSA and has given consent to releasing the applicant
on bail.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant would submit that victim
has already been examined before the learned trial Court and she has
not supported the case of the prosecution. He would further submit that
on the date of alleged incident, the age of the victim was more than 18
years. It is also argued that victim has denied the suggestions put forth
by the Public Prosecutor. The applicant is in jail since 04.04.2026 and
he has no criminal antecedent. He, therefore, prays for grant of bail to
the applicant.
5. On the other hand, learned State counsel would oppose the bail
application and submit that the victim was 16 years and 8 months of
age on the date of the incident and serious allegations have been
levelled against the present applicant and, therefore, application
moved by the applicant for grant of bail may be rejected.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case
diary.
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 20 years and

3
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 04.04.2026, 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.
(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,

4
(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