Injamamul Haque Ansari vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 29 April, 2025

Chattisgarh High Court

Injamamul Haque Ansari vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 29 April, 2025

Author: Narendra Kumar Vyas

Bench: Narendra Kumar Vyas

                                                          1




                                                                          2025:CGHC:19268
                                                                                       NAFR

                                 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

                                             MCRC No. 2492 of 2025


                       Istiyaq Alam S/oajij Ansari Aged About 19 Years R/o Batwahi Chowki
                       Raghunathpur, Police Station Lundra, District Surguja Chhattisgarh.
                                                                            --- Applicant (s)
                                                       versus
                       State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Lundra, District Surguja
                       Chhattisgarh.
                                                                          --- Respondent(s)

MCRC No. 2820 of 2025

Injamamul Haque Ansari S/o Esrail Ansari Aged About 20 Years R/o
Batwahi Chowki Raghunathpur, Police Station Lundra, District Surguja
Chhattisgarh.

—Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Lundra, District Surguja
Chhattisgarh.

— Respondent(s)
For Applicants : Mr. Anurag Singh, Advocate
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kishan Lal Sahu, Dy. GA

Hon’ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas
Order on Board
29/04/2025

1. These are the second bail applications filed under Section 483 of the

Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the

applicants who have been arrested in connection with Crime No. 84 of

Digitally
signed by
SANTOSH
SANTOSH KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date:

2025.04.29
16:15:03
+0530
2

2024 registered at Police Station Lundra, District Sarguja (C.G.) for the

offence punishable under Sections 363, 366(A), 354, 354(A), 34, 506,

212, 114, 120(B) of the IPC and 3(1)(W) of the Scheduled Castes and

Scheduled Tribes Act and Sections 8 and 17 of the POCSO ACT. The

first bail applications filed by the applicants were dismissed as

withdrawn in MCRC No. 6500 of 2024 on 25.11.2024 and in MCRC No.

4175 of 2024 on 05.09.2024.

2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that teacher of middle school

Junadih Kot has lodged the complaint alleging that on 02.04.2024 her

daughter aged about 14 years had gone to school for examination

thereafter she did not return to home. It is alleged that her minor

daughter was allured and abducted by the co-accused from their

lawful guardianship. On the basis of complaint, FIR was registered

against the applicants under Section 363 of the IPC. During

investigation, the victims were recovered at Ranchi Bus stand

(Jharkhand) from possession of co-accused Injamamul Haque and

Istiyaq Alam, both co-accused have allured the minor girls and took

them from Raghunathpur to Jharkhand in a swift car bearing

registration No. CG-13 AE 4931 which was driven by the co-accused.

Thereafter, offence under Sections 363, 366(A), 354, 354(A), 354(D),

506, 34, 212, 114, 120(B) of the IPC and Sections 8, 17 of the POCSO

Act was registered against the applicants.

3. Counsel for the applicants submit that the applicants are innocent and

they have been falsely implicated in the case as they have no

connection with the commission of offence. He would further submit

that the victim went with the applicants of her own wish and there

was no forcible pressure by the applicants. He would further submit

that the prosecution has cited total 24 witnesses out of which only six
3

witnesses were examined before the Court and 18 witnesses is yet to

be examined and trial will take some time for its conclusion. He would

further submit that the applicants are in jail since 03.04.2024 and

charge sheet has already been filed. The victim was examined and no

custodial interrogation is required in this case, therefore, he prays for

enlarging the applicants on regular bail.

4. On the other hand learned counsel for the State would submit that

minor girl were forcefully abduced by accused persons. He would

further submit that the statements of the victims were recorded under

Sections 161 and 164 CrPC wherein they have stated about the role

played by the applicants. He would further submit that looking to the

role attributed to the applicants, they are not entitled for grant of bail

and would pray for rejection of the bail applications.

5. In pursuance of notice issued by this Court on 09.04.2025, victim’s

father appeared before this Court through concerned DLSA and raised

his objection for grant of bail to the applicants. His objection is taken

on record.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case

diary.

7. Considering the fact that the prosecution has cited total 24 witnesses

out of which only six witnesses were examined before the Court and

18 witnesses is yet to be examined and trial will take some time for its

conclusion, further considering the fact that applicants are in jail since

03.04.2024, more than 1 year has already been lapsed and the fact

that charge sheet has already been filed, this Court is of the opinion

that it is fit case to release the applicants on bail.
4

8. Accordingly, the bail applications are allowed and the applicants are

directed to be released on bail on both the cases on their furnishing a

personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety in each

cases for the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court for

their appearance before that Court as and when so directed.

9. Certified copy as per rules.

Sd/-

(Narendra Kumar Vyas)
Judge

Santosh