1 SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2026.09.16 17:53:05 +0530 CGHC010335802026 2026:CGHC:40405 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 8040 of 2026  Dharmjeet Singh Netam @ Anshu Netam S/o Gorelal Netam Aged About 20 Years Resident Of Village- Hardadih, School Para, Police Station- Seepat, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus  State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer, Police Station-Seepat, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate For State : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Government Advocate Objector/Complainant : Mr. Yash Tripathi, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 16.09.2026 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 224/2026 registered at Police Station Seepat, District Bilaspur (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 75(3), 115(2) read with Section 3(5) of BNS and Sections 8, 16 & 17 of POCSO Act. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the prosecutrix lodged a report at Police Station Seepat, alleging therein that she is living at Dharsinwa, District Raipur and is studying in Class 9th. The prosecutrix had come to her 2

maternal uncle's house at Village Hardadih to attend the Shiv Puran. On 15.04.2026, the prosecutrix went to attend the Shiv Puran, where accused Anshu Netam allegedly misbehaved with her and co-accused Paltan Netam allegedly assaulted the aunt of the prosecutrix. It is further alleged that Anshu Netam and his friend touched the prosecutrix and made obscene comments with intention of outraging her modesty. On the basis of the aforesaid report, the aforesaid offences were registered against the accused persons, including the present applicant. 3. Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate appearing for the applicant would contend that there is allegation of molestation of a minor girl, aged about 14 years, against the present applicant. He would further contend that in present case charge-sheet has been filed and applicant is in jail since 15.07.2026. It is also contended that co-accused persons have already granted anticipatory bail by the Coordinate Bench. Mr. Khetrapal would argue that maximum punishment provided for commission of offence under Section 75(3) of BNS is one year and applicant is in jail for more than 2 months, and therefore, instant bail application may be allowed.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State and objector would oppose the bail application. They would submit that there are serious allegations against the present applicant. They would submit that the anticipatory bail applications of the co-accused have been allowed making observation that the main culprit is present applicant, namely, Dharmjeet Singh Netam @ Anshu Netam. They would submit that this bail application deserves to be rejected. 3 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the allegations levelled against the present applicant, the fact that the charge-sheet has already been filed, period of detention and punishment provided under Section 75(3) of the BNS, I am inclined to grant regular bail to the present applicant. 7. Accordingly, the regular bail application is allowed and it is directed that in the event of the applicant executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/-each with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court, they shall be released on bail on the following conditions:- (i) he shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such fact to the Court; (ii) he shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial, &

(iii) he shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to him by the said Court till disposal of the trial. 8. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE $iddhant

1 SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2026.09.16 17:53:05 +0530 CGHC010335802026 2026:CGHC:40405 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 8040 of 2026  Dharmjeet Singh Netam @ Anshu Netam S/o Gorelal Netam Aged About 20 Years Resident Of Village- Hardadih, School Para, Police Station- Seepat, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Applicant versus  State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer, Police Station-Seepat, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Non-Applicant For Applicant : Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate For State : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Government Advocate Objector/Complainant : Mr. Yash Tripathi, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 16.09.2026 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 224/2026 registered at Police Station Seepat, District Bilaspur (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 75(3), 115(2) read with Section 3(5) of BNS and Sections 8, 16 & 17 of POCSO Act. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the prosecutrix lodged a report at Police Station Seepat, alleging therein that she is living at Dharsinwa, District Raipur and is studying in Class 9th. The prosecutrix had come to her 2

maternal uncle's house at Village Hardadih to attend the Shiv Puran. On 15.04.2026, the prosecutrix went to attend the Shiv Puran, where accused Anshu Netam allegedly misbehaved with her and co-accused Paltan Netam allegedly assaulted the aunt of the prosecutrix. It is further alleged that Anshu Netam and his friend touched the prosecutrix and made obscene comments with intention of outraging her modesty. On the basis of the aforesaid report, the aforesaid offences were registered against the accused persons, including the present applicant. 3. Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate appearing for the applicant would contend that there is allegation of molestation of a minor girl, aged about 14 years, against the present applicant. He would further contend that in present case charge-sheet has been filed and applicant is in jail since 15.07.2026. It is also contended that co-accused persons have already granted anticipatory bail by the Coordinate Bench. Mr. Khetrapal would argue that maximum punishment provided for commission of offence under Section 75(3) of BNS is one year and applicant is in jail for more than 2 months, and therefore, instant bail application may be allowed.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State and objector would oppose the bail application. They would submit that there are serious allegations against the present applicant. They would submit that the anticipatory bail applications of the co-accused have been allowed making observation that the main culprit is present applicant, namely, Dharmjeet Singh Netam @ Anshu Netam. They would submit that this bail application deserves to be rejected. 3 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the allegations levelled against the present applicant, the fact that the charge-sheet has already been filed, period of detention and punishment provided under Section 75(3) of the BNS, I am inclined to grant regular bail to the present applicant. 7. Accordingly, the regular bail application is allowed and it is directed that in the event of the applicant executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/-each with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court, they shall be released on bail on the following conditions:- (i) he shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such fact to the Court; (ii) he shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial, &

(iii) he shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to him by the said Court till disposal of the trial. 8. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE $iddhant