DEVENDRA KUMAR KASHYAP vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

CGHC010361512026 2026:CGHC:45078
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No. 8789 of 2026
1 - Devendra Kumar Kashyap S/o Shri Umashankar Kashyap, Aged About 24 Years
Village Paidhar Kosa, P.S. - Mulmula, District - Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh.
... Applicant(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station - Mulmula, District - Janjgir-
Champa, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s)
For Applicant (s) : Mr. Ishan Kashyap, advocate on behalf
of Neeraj Mehta, Advocate
For Respondent(s)/State : Ms. Smriti Shrivastava, P.L.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
Order on Board
26.10.2026
1. The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483
of the BNSS, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in
connection with Crime No. 156/2026, registered at Police Station
Mulmula, District Janjgir Champa (C.G.) for the offence punishable
under Sections 64 of BNS and 4 & 6 of POCSO Act.
2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 09.05.2026, the
prosecutrix lodged an FIR against the present applicant, alleging that
the applicant established physical relations with her on 15.08.2024 on
the pretext of marriage and that the relationship continued till
28.03.2026. It is further alleged that the prosecutrix got married to

2
another person on 25.03.2026 and, upon returning to her home, the
present applicant again sexually assaulted her on 28.03.2026.
Pursuant to the aforesaid allegations, the offences, as mentioned
above, were registered against the applicant.
3. Pursuant to the notice dated 21.09.2026 issued to the victim, the victim
and her mother appeared before this Court today through video
conferencing from the concerned DLSA and raised serious objections
to the grant of bail to the applicant.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant would submit that, on the
date of the alleged incident, the victim was aged about 17 years and 2
months, whereas the FIR was lodged on 09.05.2026, when she was
aged about 19 years. He would further submit that there was a delay in
lodging the FIR and that the relationship between the applicant and the
prosecutrix was consensual, which continued for about one and a half
years. He also submits that the charge-sheet has already been filed
and the applicant has been in jail since 10.05.2026. 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, on the date of the alleged incident, the
victim was aged about 17 years and 2 months and that the applicant
sexually exploited her on the pretext of marriage for about one and a
half years. He would further submit that serious allegations of sexual
assault have been levelled against the present applicant and,
therefore, the bail application deserves to be rejected.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case

3
diary.
7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case,
particularly the fact that the alleged relationship between the applicant
and the prosecutrix continued for about one and a half years and they
were in a consensual relationship and considering the fact that the
applicant has no criminal antecedents, and there is a delay in lodging
the FIR, and also considering the fact that the applicant is in custody
since 10.05.2026, the charge-sheet has already been filed, 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

4
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,
(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.
D Sd/- -
(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)
Judge
Jyoti