Chattisgarh High Court
Hurdanand Nayak vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 20 January, 2025
1
2025:CGHC:3495
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No. 8793 of 2024
1 - Hurdanand Nayak S/o Babloo Bahan @ Babroo Nayak Aged About 42
Years R/o - Village - Sekhpada, Police Station- Junagarh, District- Kalahandi
(Odisha)
2 - Jaggnath Manjhi S/o Murlidhar Manjhi Aged About 35 Years R/o - Village -
Gotomuda, Police Station- Aampani, District- Kalahandi (Odisha)
... Applicants
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station-
Devbhog, District- Gariyaband, C.G.
... Respondent(s)
For Applicants : Shri Shivendu Pandya, Advocate
For Respondent/STate : Shri Pranjal Shukla, PL
(Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma)
Order on Board
20/01/2025
The applicants have filed this bail application under Section 483 of the
Bhartiya Nagrrik Suraksha Sanhita for grant of regular bail as they are in
custody in connection with Crime No. 231/2024 registered at police station
Devbhog, District Gariyaband(CG) for the offence punishable under Sections
2
363, 363, 376(2)(n) and 368 IPC, Sections 4,6,17,18 of the Protection of
Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 .
2. Prosecution case in brief is that father of the prosecutrix has lodged a
report alleging that his daughter was subjected to rape by the
accused/applicants. It is alleged by the prosecutrix that the
accused/applicants have assisted the main accused in committed rape.
4. Counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have been
falsely implicated in the case. He further submits that the present applicants
have only assisted the prosecutrix in dropping her to the railway station
Raigarh from where she left with the main accused namely Amar Manjhi. He
further submits that statement of the prosecutrix under Section 161 and 164
Cr.P.C. are contradictory to each other and it appears that it is a concocted
story against the applicants. Lastly, he submits that the applicants are in jail
since 28.09.2024, the charge sheet has been filed and the trial is likely to
take some time, they are ready and willing to comply with any of the
conditions which may be imposed upon them and thus, it is submitted that the
application be allowed and the applicants be released on bail.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent/State, on the other hand, has
opposed the bail application and submits that the prosecutrix was minor aged
about 15 years and eight months.
6. Victim and her father appeared through the concerned DLSA and have
raised objection.
7. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
8. On due consideration of the rival submissions and the fact that they are
in jail since 28.09.2024, the charge sheet has been filed and looking to the
3
fact that the the applicants have only assisted the prosecutrix in dropping her
to the railway station and it is the main accused namely Amar Manjhi who had
committed the offence and that the final disposal of the trial is likely to take
sufficiently long time, the present application deserves to be allowed.
Accordingly, their bail application is allowed.
9. It is directed that in the event of applicants’ executing a personal bond
for a sum of Rs. 10,000/- each with one surety to the satisfaction of the
concerned trial court, they shall be released on bail on the following
conditions:
i) they shall appear before the trial court regularly on each
and every date, unless exempted from appearance.
ii) they shall not make any attempt to tamper with the
prosecution witnesses.
Iii) the applicants are directed not to communicate/contact in
any manner with the prosecutrix, her family members and the
witnesses cited in the charge sheet any other person
concerned or attempt to ask for any favour in the trial directly
or indirectly.
Sd/-
(Arvind Kumar Verma)
Judge
Digitally signed
by SUGUNA
SUGUNA DUBEY
DUBEY Date:
2025.01.22
04:53:33 -0500
[ad_1]
Source link