[Cites 11, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Vikky @ Samar Vishwas vs The State Of Chhattisgarh on 17 March, 2026
1
2026:CGHC:12626
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No. 1503 of 2026
1 - Vikky @ Samar Vishwas S/o Badal Vishwas Aged About 32 Years R/o
Village And Post Sakalo, Near Kali Mandir, P.S. Gandhi Nagar, District Sarguja
C.G.
... Applicant(s)
versus
1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through S H O To Ps Tikrapara, District Raipur
C.G. ---Non-applicants
For applicant : Mr. Praveen Soni, along with Mr. Suraj
Kumar Audheliya, Advocates
For-Non-applicants : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, G.A.
Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge
Order on Board
17/03/2026
1.
The applicant has preferred this Second Bail Application under
Section 483 of B.N.S.S. in connection with Crime No.0516/2025,
registered at Police Station Tikrapara, District Raipur Chhattisgarh for
the offences punishable under Sections 201, 307, 323, 363, 366,
376(2)(n), 506, 34 of IPC, Section 6, 17, 19 of the POCSO Act.
2. Earlier bail application was dismissed on merits on 14.11.2025 in
Digitally
signed by
JYOTI JHA
Date:
2026.03.17
16:48:38
+0530
MCRC No. 8625/2025.
3. Brief facts of this case is that the present case originates from a FIR
lodged on 10.07.2025, by the Mother of the Prosecutrix (PW01). The
Complainant alleges that on 22.04.2024, the Prime-Accused Kishore
Gain abducted her minor daughter (the Prosecutrix) and transported
her to Sakalu village, where he purportedly solemnized a marriage. It
is further contended that when the Complainant and her husband
attempted to intervene at the residence of the Prime-Accused, they
were unlawfully restrained. The prime accused allegedly issued
threats of self-harm to prevent the Complainant from retrieving the
Prosecutrix. On 05.05.2024, the Complainant purportedly learned that
the Prosecutrix had sustained an air-gun injury. Upon visiting the
hospital, the Prosecutrix allegedly disclosed that she had been
abducted, subjected to non-consensual sexual intercourse (rape), and
intimidated with dire consequences. The specific allegation against
the present Applicant is limited to the abetment of the alleged
abduction. It is contended that the Applicant, acting in concert with
others, facilitated the movement of the Prosecutrix. Following the
investigation, the Applicant was subsequently arrested on 12.07.2025
and remains in judicial custody.
4. Learned counsel for the Applicant submits that upon a careful perusal
of the entire Charge-Sheet, the only allegation against the present
Applicant is that his vehicle, i.e., Hyundai i10, was allegedly used by
the prime accused for the commission of the alleged offence, and the
said vehicle was seized from the possession of the Applicant's father.
It is further submitted that the Applicant, along with his father, is
engaged in a lawful car-rental business, and there is no material on
record to show his knowledge or involvement in the alleged act,
except the applicability of Section 17 of the POCSO Act.
5. It is also contended by the learned counsel for applicant that
there is an inordinate and unexplained delay of about 01 year, 02
months and 18 days in lodging of the FIR, which casts serious
doubt on the prosecution story. Learned counsel further submits
that on the date of the alleged incident, the prosecutrix was aged
about 16 years, 10 months and 16 days, as per the documents
on record. It is further submitted that the charge-sheet has
already been filed and the material witnesses, namely the
prosecutrix and her parents (PW-01, PW-02 and PW-03), have
been examined before the trial Court and have turned hostile,
thereby substantially weakening the prosecution case. It is
argued that the conclusion of trial is likely to take considerable
time.
6. Learned counsel further submits that the Applicant is in custody
since 12.07.2025 and has undergone a substantial period of
incarceration. The Applicant is innocent, has been falsely
implicated, and his continued detention would cause undue
hardship to his family and affect his means of livelihood. It is also
submitted that on similar set of allegations, this Hon'ble Court
has already granted bail to a co-accused, and therefore, on the
ground of parity also, the present Applicant is entitled to be
released on bail.
7. Notice issued to the victim has duly been served, however, no one
appeared on behalf of the victim. In such circumstances, Ms.
Manubha Shankar, Advocate, who is present in the Court is appointed
as amicus curiae to assist the Court on behalf of the victim.
8. After going through the documents, Ms. Manubha Shankar, Advocate,
appointed as amicus curiae, opposes the prayer for grant of bail for
the applicant
9. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State opposes the bail
application and submits that there is ample evidence on record to
connect the appellant with commission of the offence. For which, the
applicant has not given any plausible explanation, therefore, the bail
application is liable to be dismissed.
10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case
diary produced by the learned counsel for the State.
11. Considering the nature and gravity of allegations, it is apparent that
the present Applicant is not the principal accused and the allegation
against him is limited to facilitation of the alleged offence by providing
his vehicle. It is also noteworthy that the charge-sheet has already
been filed and the material witnesses, including the prosecutrix (PW-
02) and her parents (PW-01 and PW-03), have been examined before
the trial Court and have turned hostile. The Applicant is in custody
since 12.07.2025 and the conclusion of trial is likely to take
considerable time. Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts and
circumstances of the case, particularly the limited role attributed to the
Applicant, the fact that the key witnesses have not supported the
prosecution case, the period of incarceration, and also considering the
principle of parity as a co-accused has already been granted bail,
without commenting on the merits of the case, this Court is inclined to
allow the present Second Bail Application.
12. Let the present applicant be released on bail on his furnishing a
personal bond with one surety in the like amount 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
their counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient
cause, the trial court may proceed against them under
Section 269 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sahita, 2023
(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 2023. 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 Bhartiya Nyaya Sahita,
(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 2023 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 them in accordance
with law.
13. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court
concerned for necessary information.
Sd/-
(Arvind Kumar Verma)
Judge
Jyoti
