Bhatapara (C.G.) v. State of Chhattisgarh Through
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:23564 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 4408 of 2025 Mukesh Yadav S/o. Manohar Yadav Aged About 28 Years R/o. Village - Khaparadeeh, Police Station - Gidhouri-Tundara, Dist. Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through- The Station House OfÏcer, Police Of Police Station - Gidhouri, Dist. Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Non-applicant For Applicant
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Anil Kumar Gulati, Advocate For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Amit Verma, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 12.06.2025 Order on Board 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. 280/2024 registered at Police Station : Gidhouri, District : Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 64, 142, 351(3), 127(B) read with Section 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. As per the prosecution's story, in brief, is that the FIR was lodged by the victim alleging that on 22.12.2024, she had gone to her aunt’s house, but her aunt was not present. The applicant, who was RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 present there, noticed that the victim was alone and allegedly established physical relations with her. The applicant also threatened the victim not to disclose the incident to anyone. Later, at around 10:00 PM, the applicant again called the victim, and upon his call, she returned to the applicant’s house, where he once again established physical relations with her. Meanwhile, the victim’s brother-in-law arrived and saw the applicant and the victim in a suspicious condition. He then informed the victim’s husband and other family members. Thereafter, an FIR was lodged against the applicant and other co-accused persons for the commission of the alleged offences. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant is an innocent person and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He submits that the applicant and victim are major persons and the victim was a consenting party, as on 22.12.2024 at about 1:00 PM, when she went to the house of the applicant, the applicant allegedly established physical relations with her against her will. However, later the same day, at around 10:00 PM, when the applicant called the victim again, she went to his house of her own accord, leaving her husband behind. While the applicant and the victim were in a suspicious condition, the victim’s brother-in-law arrived and saw them. He then called the husband and other family members. The entire conduct of the victim clearly shows that she was a consenting party and had voluntarily gone to the house of the applicant. He further submits that it is pertinent to note that the FIR was lodged under pressure from her husband after the incident 3 came to light, as the victim and the applicant were caught in a compromising situation by her brother-in-law. Had the victim not been seen by her brother-in-law, the matter would not have been reported to the police. It is further submitted that the victim is about 29 years of age and, on the date of the incident, her husband had come home and, after having dinner, had gone to sleep. By that time, the victim had not informed her husband about the incident alleged to have occurred at around 1:00 PM in the afternoon. It is also submitted that there were no external or internal injuries found on the victim during her medical examination. Furthermore, the applicant is 28 years of age and has been in judicial custody since 24.12.2024 and the conclusion of the trial may take some time, therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the present applicant. 4. On the other hand learned State counsel opposes the bail application of the present applicant and submits that the charge- sheet has been submitted before the competent Court in the present case. He further submits that the present applicant/accused established physical relations with her. The applicant also threatened the victim not to disclose the incident to anyone. He further submits that at around 10:00 PM, the applicant again established physical relations with her, therefore, he is not entitled for grant of regular bail. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Considering the facts and circumstance of the case, nature and gravity of offence and from the perusal of statement of victim 4 recorded, it appears that the victim who is a major girl having a consensual relationship with the applicant and she was a consenting party and had voluntarily gone to the house of the applicant and the FIR was lodged under pressure from her husband after the incident came to light and also considering the fact that the charge-sheet has already been submitted in the present case before the competent Court and the present applicant is in jail since 24.12.2024 and the trial is likely to take sometime for its conclusion, therefore, I am of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 7. Let applicant, Mukesh Yadav, involved in Crime No. 280/2024 registered at Police Station : Gidhouri, District : Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 64, 142, 351(3), 127(B) read with Section 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties 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 his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufÏcient 5 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 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 sufÏcient 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. 8. OfÏce is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Rahul Dewangan Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice