B. KESHWAN REDDY @ KESHAW vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

CGHC010132082026
NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No. 3233 of 2026
Lakhvindar Kaur Urf Lucky W/o Praveen Kumar Gupta Aged About 45
Years R/o Durga Para, Supela, Behind Junev Cooperative, Junev
Rented House, Police Station Supela, District Durg Chhattisgarh
--- Applicant(s)
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station - Vaishali Nagar, District
Durg Chhattisgarh
--- Non-applicant(s)
For Applicant : Mr. Virendra Kashyap, Advocate.
For Non-applicants/State : Mr. Sharad Mishra, Govt. Advocate.
MCRC No. 3713 of 2026
Anand Kurrey S/o Madhu Kurrey Aged About 42 Years R/o Shakti
Nagar, Khursipar Zone No. 1, Sector 11, Durg, At Present Address
Kailash Nagar Ekta Chowk, Housing Board, Police Station Jamul, Distt.
Durg, Chhattisgarh.
--- Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Of
Police Station Vaishali Nagar, Distt. Durg, Chhattisgarh.
--- Non-applicant(s)

2
For Applicant : Ms. Kanchan Kalwani, Advocate.
For Non-applicants/State : Mr. Sharad Mishra, Govt. Advocate.
MCRC No. 3107 of 2026
B. Keshwan Reddy @ Keshaw S/o K. Bairagi Reddy Aged About 57
Years R/o Quarter No. 18b, Street No. 01, Sector-01, Bhilai Bhatti,
District- Durg (Chhattisgarh).
--- Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Police Station- Vaishali Nagar, District-
Durg, Chhattisgarh.
... Non-Applicant(s)
For Applicant : Mr. Jitendra Gupta, Advocate.
For Non-applicants/State : Mr. Sharad Mishra, Govt. Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri. Rakesh Mohan Pandey, Judge
Order on Board
04/11/2026
Since the above three bail applications are arising out of same
1.
crime number, same police station and same offences so they
are being heard and decided by this common order.
2. Applicant Lakhvinder Kaur @ Lucky and applicant B. Keshwan
Reddy @ Keshav have preferred their respective second bail
applications, whereas applicant Anand Kurre has preferred his
first bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for grant of regular bail, as they have
been arrested in connection with Crime No. 265/2025, registered

3
at Police Station Vaishali Nagar, District Durg (C.G.), for the
offences punishable under Sections 98, 3(5) and 64 of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 6 of the Protection of
Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short, ‘the POCSO
Act’).
3. The earlier first bail application of applicant Lakhvinder Kaur @
Lucky was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court in MCRC No.
9568 of 2025 vide order dated 11.12.2025. The earlier first bail
application of applicant B. Keshwan Reddy @ Keshav was
rejected on merits by a coordinate Bench of this Court in MCRC
No. 8502 of 2025 vide order dated 25.11.2025. Hence, the
present second bail applications filed by the said applicants.
4. The prosecution story, in brief, is that the victim lodged a written
complaint at Police Station Vaishali Nagar, District Durg, alleging
that, as her brother had gone to Visakhapatnam for employment,
he had left her in the care of her aunt, Harjinder Kaur. It is alleged
that her aunt initially induced her by offering money and
thereafter, took her to the house of co-accused Sulochana Tandi
at Ram Nagar on 20.05.2025, despite her unwillingness.
Thereafter, co-accused Sulochana Tandi allegedly circulated the
victim’s photographs through her mobile phone to various
persons and sent the victim to several persons in lieu of money,
allegedly ranging from Rs.4,000/- to Rs.5,000/- per person. The
victim was allegedly subjected to sexual exploitation by

4
approximately 20 to 25 persons at different places, including the
house of co-accused Sulochana Tandi, Power House and hotels
situated on Raipur Road. It is further alleged that the persons
who were sent to the victim paid money to co-accused Harjinder
Kaur and Sulochana Tandi. The victim was allegedly lured with
the promise of jewellery and was also threatened that, if she
disclosed the incident to anyone, she and her brother would be
implicated in a false case. Due to fear and shame, she could not
disclose the incident to anyone. It is further alleged that she was
last sent for prostitution on 02.07.2025 for a consideration of
Rs.5,000/-. Subsequently, when she went to the house of her
elder aunt, she disclosed the entire incident to her, whereafter her
brother was informed and the matter was reported to the police.
During investigation, the victim, in her statement, also
referred to a person named “Lucky” in connection with the alleged
prostitution racket. The role of applicant Lakhvinder Kaur @
Lucky surfaced during investigation and co-accused Harjinder
Kaur also allegedly referred to the said person in her
memorandum statement. The investigating agency has collected
call detail records of mobile phone No. 74892xxxxx, allegedly
belonging to co-accused Harjinder Kaur, which indicate calls and
messages exchanged with mobile phone No. 76971xxxxx,
allegedly belonging to applicant Lakhvinder Kaur. The mobile
phones of the accused persons were also seized during
investigation.

5
So far as applicant B. Keshwan Reddy @ Keshav is concerned, it
5.
is alleged that the victim, in her statement, named him as one of
the persons who had established physical relations with her
during the relevant period. It is further alleged that he had
contacted the co-accused persons and paid money in connection
with the said act. Similarly, applicant Anand Kurre is alleged to
have taken the victim in his car and established physical relations
with her on several occasions during the period from 20.05.2025
to 02.07.2025. On the basis of the written complaint and the
material collected during investigation, the aforesaid offences
were registered against the applicants and other co-accused
persons. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been
filed before the competent Court.
6. Learned counsel appearing for applicant Lakhvinder Kaur @
Lucky would submit that the applicant is innocent and has been
falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the
applicant is a 45-year-old woman and the sole earning member of
her family. He would further submit that the earlier bail application
of the applicant was dismissed as withdrawn in MCRC No. 9568
of 2025 vide order dated 11.12.2025, without adjudication on
merits and thereafter there has been a change in circumstances
as the trial has commenced, but the prosecution evidence has
not progressed substantially despite several opportunities. It is
further submitted that no specific allegation has been made
against the applicant in the FIR or the complaint and the victim

6
has merely referred to a person named “Lucky”, without
furnishing any description or identifying particulars. Even in the
statements of the victim recorded under Section 183 of the
BNSS, no specific identifying particulars or specific overt act have
been attributed to the applicant. He would also submit that no test
identification parade was conducted during investigation and the
applicant was never identified by the victim in accordance with
law. It is further submitted that no recovery or incriminating
material has been seized from the applicant and there is no
evidence of any financial transaction, message, photograph or
digital material connecting her with the alleged offence. The
prosecution case against the applicant is primarily based on call
detail records and memorandum statements of co-accused
persons, which, in the absence of any corroborative material, are
insufficient to establish her involvement. It is also submitted that
mere telephonic contact does not establish involvement in any
criminal conspiracy. He would further submit that co-accused
Nasreen has already been granted bail and the case of the
present applicant stands on a better footing. The applicant has no
criminal antecedents and being a woman, deserves liberal
consideration. It is further submitted that the applicant has
remained in custody since 10.08.2025 and the trial is likely to
take considerable time for its conclusion. On these grounds,
learned counsel prays for grant of bail.
7. Learned counsel appearing for applicant B. Keshwan Reddy @

7
Keshav would submit that the applicant is innocent and has been
falsely implicated in the present case. She would further submit
that the earlier first bail application of the applicant was rejected
by this Court in MCRC No. 8502 of 2025 vide order dated
25.11.2025, primarily on the basis of the statement of the victim
and the gravity of the allegations. However, subsequent thereto,
there has been a change in circumstances, as the charge-sheet
has been filed and the trial has commenced, but the prosecution
evidence has not progressed substantially. It is further submitted
that the applicant is in custody since 09.08.2025 and continued
incarceration would amount to pre-trial punishment. She would
also submit that the prosecution case is primarily based on the
statement of the victim and there is no independent corroborative
evidence connecting the applicant with the alleged offence. The
medical examination report does not indicate any injury or
conclusive sign of forceful sexual assault. It is further submitted
that no incriminating recovery has been made from the applicant
and no scientific or forensic evidence has been collected to
connect him with the alleged offence. The alleged transaction is
also not supported by any documentary or electronic evidence,
such as payment proof, call recordings or location data and
further the applicant is aged about 57 years, has no criminal
antecedents and further co-accused Nasreen has already been
granted bail and the applicant is also entitled to the benefit of
parity. It is lastly submitted that the conclusion of the trial is likely

8
to take considerable time. On these grounds, learned counsel
prays for grant of bail.
Learned counsel appearing for applicant Anand Kurre would
8.
submit that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely
implicated in the present case. He would further submit that the
applicant has not committed any offence as alleged by the
prosecution. It is submitted that the applicant is a young person
aged about 42 years and has remained in jail since 05.10.2025.
The charge-sheet has already been filed before the competent
Court and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take considerable
time. On these grounds, learned counsel prays for grant of bail to
the applicant.
9. On the other hand, learned State counsel would oppose the
prayer for grant of bail and submit that serious allegations have
been levelled against all the applicants in connection with the
alleged organised prostitution racket involving a minor victim. He
would further submit that pursuant to the direction of this Court,
the victim along with her brother appeared before this Court on
02.09.2026 and raised serious objection to the grant of bail to the
applicants. It is further submitted that, in her statement recorded
under Section 183 of the BNSS, the victim has made specific
allegations regarding her sexual exploitation and the involvement
of the accused persons. Learned State counsel would also
submit that on the date of the alleged incident, the victim was

9
aged about 17 years and 10 months and therefore, was a minor.
The allegations disclose that the victim was allegedly subjected to
repeated sexual exploitation by several persons for monetary
consideration. He would further submit that the earlier first bail
application of applicant B. Keshwan Reddy @ Keshav has
already been rejected on merits by a coordinate Bench of this
Court and there is no substantial change in circumstances
warranting reconsideration of his prayer for bail. On these
grounds, he prays for rejection of all the bail applications.
Pursuant to the direction of this Court, the victim along with her
10.
brother appeared before this Court through video conferencing on
02.09.2026 and raised serious objection to the grant of bail to the
applicants.
11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
case diary.
Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case,
12.
nature and gravity of allegations levelled against the applicants
and the material collected during investigation, particularly the
fact that the victim was aged about 17 years and 10 months at
the relevant time and was, therefore, a minor, the allegation that
she was induced and exploited by the co-accused persons and
was allegedly sent to several persons for sexual exploitation in
lieu of monetary consideration and the specific allegations made
by the victim in her statement recorded under Section 183 of the

10
BNSS, the allegations prima facie disclose a serious offence
involving the sexual exploitation of a minor. The allegations are
not confined to a single incident but relate to repeated acts of
sexual exploitation over a period of time at different places and by
several persons.
13. So far as applicant Lakhvinder Kaur @ Lucky is concerned,
although learned counsel has submitted that no specific overt act
has been attributed to her and that her implication is based on the
reference to a person named “Lucky” and the call detail records
but the material collected during investigation, including the
statement of the victim, the memorandum statement of co-
accused Harjinder Kaur and the call detail records indicating
communication between the mobile numbers allegedly belonging
to co-accused Harjinder Kaur and the applicant, cannot be
altogether ignored at this stage. The evidentiary value and effect
of such material would be examined during trial. The fact that the
earlier bail application was dismissed as withdrawn does not, by
itself, entitle the applicant to bail, particularly when the allegations
and the material collected during investigation disclose her
alleged connection with the other accused persons. The grounds
relating to absence of a test identification parade, lack of recovery
and the alleged absence of direct evidence are matters which
would require consideration during trial.
14. So far as applicant B. Keshwan Reddy @ Keshav is concerned,

11
the victim has allegedly named him as one of the persons who
had subjected her to sexual exploitation during the relevant
period. The earlier bail application of the applicant was rejected
on merits by a coordinate Bench of this Court in MCRC No. 8502
of 2025 vide order dated 25.11.2025. Although learned counsel
has referred to the commencement of trial, filing of the charge-
sheet and the period of incarceration, no such substantial change
in circumstances has been brought to the notice of this Court
which would warrant taking a different view from the one taken by
the coordinate Bench. The grounds regarding absence of medical
injury, lack of recovery and absence of independent corroboration
cannot, at this stage, outweigh the specific allegations made by
the victim.
So far as applicant Anand Kurre is concerned, the specific
15.
allegation against him is that he had taken the victim in his car
and established physical relations with her on several occasions
during the period from 20.05.2025 to 02.07.2025. Considering the
age of the victim and the nature of allegations, the fact that the
applicant is in custody since 05.10.2025 and that the charge-
sheet has been filed would not, by themselves, constitute
sufficient grounds for his release on bail at this stage.
16. This Court has also taken note of the objection raised by the
victim, who appeared before this Court along with her brother
through video conferencing on 02.09.2026 and strongly opposed

12
the release of the applicants on bail. The allegations, the nature
of the material collected during investigation and the overall
circumstances of the case do not persuade this Court to enlarge
the applicants on bail at this stage.
17. Consequently, all the three bail applications, namely, the second
bail applications filed by applicants Lakhvinder Kaur @ Lucky and
B. Keshwan Reddy @ Keshav, and the first bail application filed
by applicant Anand Kurrey, are hereby rejected .
- S/- Sd/-
(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)
Judge
Kunal