Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:44314 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 6683 of 2025 Dilesh Dhirhe S/o Gendram Dhirhe Aged About 27 Years R/o Village - Kaitha Jaijaipur P.S. Hasaud District - Sakti Chhattisgarh. versus ... Applicant State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House OfÏcer Chowki Belghana P.S. - Kota District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant For Applicant
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Krishna Tandon, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Ms. Shubha Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 01.09.2025 Order on Board 1. This is the Second Bail Application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 1118/2024, registered at Police Station : Kota, District - Bilaspur, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 137 (2) and 140 (1) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and after framing of Charge Section 103 (1) of BNS was added. 2. The earlier bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court in MCRC No. 4873 of 2025 vide order dated 01.08.2025, as RAHUL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by RAHUL DEWANGAN 2 an additional charge under Section 302 IPC was framed by the Trial Court and permitted to move an appropriate application under the said offence. 3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant namely Rewti Tekam lodged First Information Report (FIR) No. 1118/2024 alleging that she was married to Pramod Sahu in the year 2018, and out of the said wedlock two children were born, namely Gaurav (the missing child) and Mukesh. Thereafter, in the year 2020, the complainant and Pramod Sahu obtained a decree of divorce, after which the complainant developed a love affair with the present applicant and started residing with him. Subsequently, the complainant again left the applicant and began residing with her parents. On 12.12.2024, at about 20:00 hours, it is alleged that the applicant came to the complainant’s parental house and took away her child Gaurav, due to which the present offence of kidnapping was registered against him. After filing of the final report, Sections 137(2) and 140(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 were added. However, at the stage of framing of charges, the Learned Trial Court erroneously framed charges under Section 302 of IPC, even though the dead body has not been recovered till date and the corpus delicti is absent in the present case. 4. Learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the date of the alleged incident is 12.12.2024, whereas the First Information Report (FIR) was lodged belatedly on 22.12.2024, and 3 such unexplained delay in lodging the FIR casts serious doubt on the veracity of the prosecution story. It is further contended that despite investigation, the prosecution agency has not been able to trace the missing child, and merely to cover its failure, the applicant has been falsely implicated. Learned counsel further submits that the complainant’s husband has not been arrayed as an accused, though there are material contradictions in the statements. It is also urged that the mother of the deceased, Sukwara Bai, was earlier in a relationship with the applicant after being deserted by her first husband, but later she returned to her husband and started living with him. In such circumstances, the applicant has been falsely implicated only on the basis of the statement recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS, which is not sufÏcient to fasten criminal liability. It is lastly contended that except for the statement of Sukwara Bai and Ganeshiya Bai (grandmother of the deceased), there is no cogent evidence to establish the guilt of the applicant. He further submits that the applicant is languishing in jail since 24.12.2024, the charges have been framed and hence the applicant deserves to be released on bail. 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application of the present applicant and submits that there are specific allegations against the applicant of taking away the deceased child, and the statements of material witnesses clearly implicate him in the commission of offence. It is further submitted that the gravity of the offence is very serious and, therefore, the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail. 4 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary. 7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case that particularly the unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, absence of recovery of the corpus till date, the previous relationship between the complainant and the applicant, the contradictory statements of witnesses, and the fact that the case rests primarily on the statements recorded under Section 183 of the BNSS without any cogent corroboration, also considering the fact that the present applicant has been languishing in jail since 24.12.2024 and the conclusion of the trial may take some more time. Hence, without commenting on the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. 8. Let the Applicant – Dilesh Dhirhe, involved in Crime No. 1118/2024, registered at Police Station : Kota, District - Bilaspur, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 137 (2), 140 (1) and 103 (1) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond with two sureties 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 5 court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufÏcient cause, the trial court may proceed against his 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 his, 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 his in accordance with law. 9. OfÏce is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rahul Dewangan