NILESH @ BITTU VASUDEV vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1
MCRC No. 7037 of 2026

CGHC010297712026 2026:CGHC:39249
NAFR
Digitally
signed
by
ANKIT
KUMAR
SINGH
ANKIT
KUMAR
SINGH
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No. 7037 of 2026
1 - Nilesh @ Bittu Vasudev S/o Anup Vasudev, Aged About 20 Years, R/o
Jhari, Post Jamuaar, P.S. Bahri, Tehsil Bahri, Distt. Sidhi, M.P.
(Description of the applicant mentioned as per charge-sheet)
... Applicant
versus
1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Charama, Distt. North Baster
Kanker, Chhattisgarh.
... Respondent
For Applicant :- Ms. Savita Tiwari, Advocate.
For State :- Mr. Rishiraj Pithwa, Dy. Government Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge
Order on Board
07/09/2026
1. Applicant has filed this first bail application under Section 483 of
Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail as
he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 171/2025
registered at Police Station – Charama, District Kanker (C.G.) for
offence punishable under Sections 137(2), 87, and 64(2)(M) of
B.N.S. 2023, and also under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012.

2
MCRC No. 7037 of 2026
2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that mother of the victim made
compliant stating that on 22.12.2025, some unknown persons have
taken her minor daughter aged about 17 years 8 months. Victim
was recovered from Raipur. After recovery of the victim she
disclosed that the accused/applicant herein taken her from
Hinganghat to Nagpur and from Nagpur to Pune. She has also
disclosed that they used to work in the brick manufacturing unit
and further stated that the applicant has committed sexual
intercourse on the pretext of marriage and also played fraud with
her as the applicant did not disclose his correct name and address.
After two months applicant left the victim in Raipur. Applicant was
arrested on 20.03.2026. Hence, this application.
3. Learned counsel for applicant would submit that applicant has not
committed any offence and he has falsely been implicated in crime
in question. She would also submit that the applicant is aged about
20 years and according to the applicant victim has stated that she
was above 18 years, meaning thereby, victim is not minor. She
would further submit that the victim was the consenting party as
they used to work in the brick manufacturing unit and victim
herself accompanied the applicant and travel to Pune by public
transport and they lived together for two months. Applicant has no
criminal antecedent. She would further submit that charge-sheet
has been filed, out of 26 witnesses only one witness (victim) has
been examined and the applicant is in jail since 20.03.2026, hence,

3
MCRC No. 7037 of 2026
application may be allowed and the applicant may be enlarged on
bail.
4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the submission of
learned counsel for applicant and would submit that looking to the
gravity of offence, applicant is not entitled for grant of bail. He
would also submit that the applicant has committed sexual
intercourse by playing fraud as he has not disclosed his correct
name and residence. Applicant is resident of Madhya Pradesh. He
would further submit that the victim was minor at time of incident
as according to dakhil khariz register date of birth of the victim is
13.04.2008.
5. Pursuant to the notice issued by this Court, victim along with her
mother appeared before this Court through virtual mode from
DLSA, Kanker. They submitted that they are having strong
objection in granting bail to applicant.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their
rival submission made herein above.
7. Taking into consideration, facts and circumstances of the case,
nature of allegation, submission of learned counsel for the parties,
out of 26 witnesses only one witness (victim) has been examined,
and further the conclusion of the trial may take some more time,
tender age of the applicant, without commenting anything on
merits of the case, I am inclined to allow this bail application.

4
MCRC No. 7037 of 2026
8. Accordingly, bail application is allowed . It is directed that the
applicant shall be released on regular bail, upon furnishing a bail
bond in the sum of ₹ 25,000/- with one surety in like sum to the
satisfaction of the Court on the conditions that-
(a) 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.
(b) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court
on each date fixed, either personally or through him counsel.
In case of him absence, without sufficient cause, the trial
court may proceed against him under Section 269 of
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
(c) 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.
(d) 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.
9. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial
Court concerned for necessary information and compliance
forthwith.
Sd/-
(Parth Prateem Sahu)
Judge
Ankit