SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 6822

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Ramesh Sinha, CJ
Jasmeet Singh – Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station- Vaishali Nagar, District- Durg (Chhattisgarh) – Respondent
MCRCA No. 630 of 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Siddhant Tiwari
For the Respondents: Ms. Smriti Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer

Anticipatory bail is denied based on serious allegations and nature of offenses regarding sexual assault.

Headnote:The applicant sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, pertaining to Crime No. 151/2024, facing allegations under sections 74, 75(2) of the BNS and Section 8 of the POCSO Act. The prosecution alleges the applicant committed sexual assault on the victim, which was contested by suggesting false implications and delay in filing the FIR. The court found the material evidence serious and denied bail, stating that given the nature of the offense, the applicant is ineligible for anticipatory bail. Final outcome: The anticipatory bail application is rejected.

Table of Content
1. examining the grounds for anticipatory bail application. (Para 1 , 2)
2. arguments regarding the implications of the charges. (Para 3 , 4)
3. court's evaluation of severity and evidence. (Para 5 , 6)
4. final ruling on anticipatory bail application. (Para 7)

Order on Board

09/06/2025

1. The applicant has preferred this application under Section 482 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for grant of Anticipatory Bail, apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.151/2024, registered at Police Station – Vaishali Nagar, Bhilai, District- Durg (C.G.) for the alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 74, 75(2) of BNS and 8 of POCSO Act.

2. As per prosecution story in brief, the complainant/mother of prosecutix lodged an written complaint against the present applicant who resides in there neighborhood as he has sexually assaulted the victim by entering to her house by back door when no one was there except the victim on two occasions, upon which an FIR was registered by P.S. Vaishali Nagar, Durg (Chhattisgarh) under section 74, 75(2) of BNS and 8 of POCSO Act. Hence, this bail application under Section 482 of the BNSS for grant of anticipatory bail to the present applicant under the following grounds.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that the present applicant is an young boy aged about 19 years and the FIR has been lodged by the delay of 25 days without sufficient cause. He also submits that the father of the victim is an habitual offender and has multipal cases registered against him and just to harass the applicant and his family members he has knitted the false case against the present applicant. Therefore, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the present applicant.

4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the notice has been served to the victim and looking to the overt-act, applicant is not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.

6. Considering the nature and gravity of the offence and material available on record in the case diary and also looking to the conduct of the present applicant, considering the fact that he has sexually assaulted the victim by entering to her house by back door when no one was there except the victim on two occasions, as such, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant.

7. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant–

Jasmeet Singh filed under Section 482 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 involved in Crime No.151/2024, registered at Police Station – Vaishali Nagar, Bhilai, District- Durg (C.G.) for the alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 74, 75(2) of BNS and 8 of POCSO Act. is rejected Sd/-

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top