SOORAJ BANJARE vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

CGHC010377432026
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No. 9176 of 2026
Sooraj Banjare S/o Late Heeralal Banjare Aged About 36 Years R/o
Gram Sevti, Post Hirri, Police Station Bori, District Durg (C.G.)
... Applicant(s)
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Khairagarh, District
Khairagarh- Chuikhadan-Gandai (C.G.)
... Non-Applicant(s)
For Applicant : Mr. Nikhil Pandey, Advocate.
For Non-Applicant/State : Ms. Ritika Verma, Panel Lawyer
Hon'ble Mr. Rakesh Mohan Pandey, Judge
Order on Board
04/11/2026
This is the first bail application filed by the applicant under Section
1.
483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for grant of
regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No.
435/2025, registered at Police Station Khairagarh, District
Khairagarh-Chuikhadan-Gandai (C.G.), for the offences
punishable under Sections 137(2), 64(2)(m) and 96 of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 5(L), 6 of the POCSO
Act.

2
The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 05.09.2025, the Hostel
2.
Superintendent lodged a written complaint stating that the victim,
who was residing in the hostel and studying in Class XII, had
gone to attend a Teachers’ Day programme but did not return to
the hostel. On the basis of the said complaint, an offence under
Section 137(2) of the BNS was registered against an unknown
person. During investigation, on 06.09.2025, the victim was found
in company of the applicant near Khairagarh Bus Stand. In her
statement, she alleged that the applicant had enticed her, taken
her to a room at the PWD Rest House and subjected her to
sexual assault repeatedly. Thereafter, her medical examination
was conducted, her statement under Section 183 of the BNSS
was recorded and the relevant documents regarding her age were
seized. Upon completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was
filed before the competent Court.
Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant
3.
is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case.
The applicant is in custody since 06.09.2025 and the trial has
substantially progressed, as 12 out of 24 prosecution witnesses
have already been examined, including the victim and her mother.
He would further submit that there are material contradictions and
omissions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses,
particularly with regard to the allegation of administering liquor to
the victim. It is further contended that there is a dispute regarding

3
the age of the victim, as different dates of birth are reflected in her
documents. On these grounds, learned counsel prays for grant of
bail.
On the other hand, learned State counsel would oppose the
4.
prayer for grant of bail and submit that the victim, in her deposition
before the learned trial Court, has supported the prosecution case
and levelled serious allegations of sexual assault against the
applicant. She has categorically stated that the present applicant
took her to the PWD Rest House, compelled her to consume
liquor and thereafter sexually exploited her throughout the night. It
is further submitted that the age of the victim on the date of
incident was 16 years, 3 months and 21 days. Accordingly, she
prays for rejection of bail application.
Pursuant to the order dated 28.10.2026, the mother of the victim
5.
and the victim appeared before this Court today through video
conferencing and raised serious objections to the grant of bail to
the applicant.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case
6.
diary as well as the material available on record.
Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case,
7.
nature and gravity of allegations, the statement of the victim
recorded during trial and the age of the victim, this Court is of the
view that the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail at this

4
stage. The victim, in her deposition before the learned trial Court,
has supported the prosecution case and specifically attributed the
act of sexual assault to the applicant. The contention of learned
counsel for the applicant regarding voluntary accompaniment,
contradictions and omissions in the evidence of the prosecution
witnesses, as well as the dispute regarding the age of the victim,
are matters which require proper appreciation of evidence during
trial. It is a well-settled principle of law that the credibility and
reliability of the testimony of a witness cannot be finally
adjudicated at the stage of consideration of a bail application.
Further, the victim was below 18 years of age on the date of the
incident and has also opposed the release of the applicant before
this Court through video conferencing. In view of the aforesaid,
this Court is not inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail.
Accordingly, the bail application filed by the applicant is hereby
8.
rejected.
- S/- Sd/-
(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)
Judge
Kunal