Chattisgarh High Court
Umesh Dhiwar vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 26 August, 2025
Author: Parth Prateem Sahu
Bench: Parth Prateem Sahu
1/3
2025:CGHC:43332
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No. 6230 of 2025
• Umesh Dhiwar S/o Shri Bauwa Dhiwar Aged About 23 Years R/o Dhimar
Mohalla, Sheetala Chowk, P.S. Tikrapara, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
... Applicant
versus
• State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station Kotwali, District : Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
... Respondent
For Applicant : Mr. B.P. Sharma, Advocate
For Respondent-State : Mr. Vivek Sharma, Panel Lawyer
Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge
ORDER ON BOARD
26/08/2025
1. Applicant has filed this first bail application under Section 483 of Bhartiya
Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail as he has been
arrested in connection with Crime No. 97/2025 registered at Police Station –
Kotwali, District Raipur (C.G.) for offence punishable under Sections 64(2)(m)
of the Bharitya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 and Section 6 of the Protection of Children
from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
2. Case of prosecution in brief is that victim lodged a report in the concerned
police station on 22.05.2025 alleging that about 7 years ago applicant asked
for her mobile number, thereafter talking terms developed between them. On
12.12.2021, applicant called her in his house, committed forceful sexual
intercourse with her. When she objected and stated that she would report the
PAWAN
KUMAR incident to the police station, applicant assured her that he would marry her.
JHA
Digitally
signed by
PAWAN
KUMAR JHA
2/3
However, thereafter he refused to marry. Based on the report, applicant was
arrested on 23.05.2025.
3. Learned counsel for applicant submits that false allegations have been
levelled against applicant. Allegation of commission of forceful sexual
intercourse is false which is alleged to have been committed on 12.12.2021
and the report was lodged after about 3 ½ years of alleged incident of
committing forceful sexual intercourse. He also contended that according to
his instruction, applicant performed engagement with the victim, however,
after getting knowledge that she was having relationship with some other boy,
he refused to marry her. Applicant is in jail since 23.05.2025, hence, he may
be released on bail.
4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the submission made by
learned counsel for the applicant and would further submit that according to
the date of birth of victim as mentioned in the school registered ie.,
07.03.2005, she was about 16 years and 9 months on the alleged date of
incident of commission of sexual intercourse. It is stated that the document
which is placed along with covering memo is not forming part of the case
diary.
5. On 21.08.2025, pursuant to the notice issued by this Court, victim along with
her mother appeared before this Court through virtual mode from concerned
DLSA and has raised objection in grant of bail to applicant.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents
placed on record.
7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of allegation,
submission of learned counsel for respective parties, without commenting
anything on merits of the case, I am inclined to allow this application.
8. Accordingly, bail application is allowed. It is directed that the applicant shall
be released on regular bail, upon furnishing a bail bond in the sum of
3/3
₹ 25,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court on
the conditions that-
(a) 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.
(b) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on
each date fixed, either personally or through him counsel. In case
of him absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may
proceed against him under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita.
(c) 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.
(d) 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 sufficient 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.
9. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court
concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith.
Sd/-d/-
(Parth Prateem Sahu)
pwn JUDGE
[ad_1]
Source link