SATISH BARGAH vs THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

CGHC010375062026 2026:CGHC:45453
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No. 8981 of 2026
Satish Bargah S/o Shri Santosh Bargah Aged About 20 Years R/o Village
- Pendri (S A), Thana - Sargaon, Distt. Mungeli Chhattisgarh
... Applicant(s)
versus
KUNAL
DEWANGAN
The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station -
Digitally
signed by
KUNAL
DEWANGAN
Sargaon, Distt. Mungeli Chhattisgarh
... Non-applicant(s)
For Applicants : Mr. Sahil Sahu, Advocate.
For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Ritika Verma, Panel Lawyer.
Hon'ble Shri Rakesh Mohan Pandey, Judge
Order on Board
28.10.2026
1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section
483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for grant of
regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No.
66/2026, registered at Police Station Sargaon, District Mungeli
(C.G.), for the offences punishable under Sections 137(2), 87, 64(1)
(2)(j), 45 and 249 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Sections
4, 6 and 17 of the POCSO Act and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 04.04.2026, the father of

2
the victim lodged a report alleging that his minor daughter, aged
about 14 years and 5 months, had left home on 03.04.2026 on the
pretext of visiting her friend and had not returned. During
investigation, the victim was recovered on 04.04.2026 and upon
enquiry, she disclosed that she had travelled to village Sanwa, from
where the applicant Satish took her on his motorcycle to the house
of his maternal uncle at village Kotmi, where he allegedly
established physical relations with her. Thereafter, her statements
were recorded and considering her age and the allegations of
sexual assault, the relevant provisions of the BNS, POCSO Act and
SC/ST Act were added. Based upon the said allegations, the
aforesaid offences were registered against the applicant.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant is
innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He
would submit that the victim had voluntarily left her parental home
and accompanied the applicant and that no force or coercion was
exercised upon her. He would further submit that the medical
examination does not reveal any external or internal injuries
suggestive of forcible sexual assault. It is further submitted that the
prosecution has failed to establish the victim's age through reliable
evidence, as PW-4, the Headmaster, is not the author of the
admission register and has not explained the basis on which her
date of birth was recorded. He would further submit that the victim's
parents have also not furnished any definite evidence regarding her
age and have admitted that the victim and the applicant were in
contact through mobile phone. The applicant is in jail since

3
09.04.2026, the charge-sheet has already been filed and no further
custodial interrogation is required. Accordingly, he prays for grant of
bail to the applicant.
4. On the other hand, learned State counsel would oppose the prayer
for grant of bail and submit that the victim was aged about 14 years
and 5 months at the time of the alleged incident, as reflected in her
school records, wherein her date of birth is recorded as 15.10.2011.
It is further submitted that the victim has already been examined
before the learned trial Court and has categorically supported the
prosecution case by making allegations of sexual assault against
the present applicant. Therefore, considering the nature and gravity
of the offences and the fact that the victim was a minor at the
relevant time, the applicant is not entitled to be enlarged on bail.
5. Pursuant to the order dated 25.09.2026 passed by this Court, the
victim, along with her father, appeared before this Court and raised
serious objection to the 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 facts and circumstances of the case, nature
and gravity of the offences alleged against the applicant, particularly
the allegation that the applicant took the victim to the house of his
maternal uncle and sexually assaulted her, the fact that the victim
was aged about 14 years and 5 months at the time of the alleged
incident as per the school records and further considering that the
victim has already been examined before the learned trial Court and
has supported the prosecution case by making specific allegations

4
against the applicant, as also the fact that the victim along with her
father appeared before this Court pursuant to the order dated
25.09.2026 and raised serious objection to the grant of bail to the
applicant, thus it is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant on bail.
8. Accordingly, the present bail application filed by the applicant,
involved in Crime No. 66/2026, registered at Police Station
Sargaon, District Mungeli (C.G.), for the offences punishable under
Sections 137(2), 87, 64(1)(2)(j), 45 and 249 of the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023, Sections 4, 6 and 17 of the POCSO Act and Section
3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, is hereby
rejected .
Sd/-
(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)
Judge
Kunal