Chattisgarh High Court
Dhannu @ Dhansagar Barman vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 23 June, 2025
1
Digitally signed by
SHUBHAM SINGH
RAGHUVANSHI
Date: 2025.06.24
16:50:55 +0530
2025:CGHC:26790
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No. 4277 of 2025
Dhannu @ Dhansagar Barman S/o Late Mohar Das Aged About 34 Years R/o
Village- Lata, Police Station- Jarhagaon, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh.
... Applicant
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station-
Jarhagaon, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh.
... Respondent
For Applicant : Ms. Nirupama Bajpai, Advocate
For Respondent : Ms. Sunita Manikpuri, Dy. G.A.
For Objector : Ms. Sangeeta Kaushik, Advocate
Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal
Order On Board
23/06/2025
1. The applicant has preferred this 1st bail application under Section 483
of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita Act 2023 for grant of regular bail
as he is arrested in connection with crime No. 86/2023, registered at
Police Station – Jarhagaon, District- Mungeli (C.G.) for offence
punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376(I)(N) of IPC and Section 4, 6
of the POCSO Act.
2
2. The prosecution story, in short, is that on 22.05.2023, father of the
victim lodged a written report in concerned police station stating therein
that the applicant lured his daughter and taken her with him. On the
basis of said written complaint, initially offence under Section 363 of
IPC was registered. On 07.04.2025, the victim was recovered from the
possession of the applicant and her statement was recorded. Based on
her statement, offences under Sections 363, 366, 376 (I)(N) were
added.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent
and has been falsely implicated in the crime in question. She further
submits that the victim was a consenting party and she was turned
hostile before the Trial Court. Before the arrest of the applicant, the
victim was living with the applicant as his wife along with their child.
The applicant is in jail since 08.04.2025, out of 18 prosecution
witnesses, only 1 has been examined till date and the trial is likely to
take time to be finalized, therefore, it is prayed that the applicant may
be enlarged on bail.
4. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes
the bail application and submits that looking to the nature of offence,
the applicant may not be released on bail.
5. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused
the material available on record.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, evidence
collected by the prosecution against the applicant, nature of offence
and further considering that statements of other important witnesses
are remain to be examined, at this stage, without further commenting
on merits of the case, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail.
7. Accordingly, the bail application is Rejected. However, the Trial Court
is directed to expedite the trial and to ensure that the trial is concluded
as expeditiously as possible.
Sd/-
(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal)
Judge
Shubham