Chattisgarh High Court
Shivlal Rajput vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 19 June, 2025
1
Digitally
signed by A
ANNAJEE
A RAO
ANNAJEE Date:
RAO 2025.06.23
17:29:51
+0530
2025:CGHC:25787
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No. 3821 of 2025
1 - Shivlal Rajput S/o Ramsingh Rajput Aged About 25 Years R/o Kharsola, Ps.
Sargaon, District Mungeli (C.G.). ... Applicant
versus
1 - State of Chhattisgarh through the Station House Officer, P.S. Pathariya, District
Mungeli (C.G.) ... Respondent
For the applicant : Mr. Suresh Kumar Verma, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mrs. Pragya Shrivastava, Dy. G.A.
(Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal)
Order on Board
19/06/2025
1. This is first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant
who has been arrested in Crime No. 243/2023 registered at Police
Station Pathariya, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh for the offences under
Sections 363, 366, 376(2)(n) of IPC and Sections 4 & 6 of POCSO Act.
2. The prosecution version is that on 20.09.2023 the mother of victim
has lodged a written report that on 18.09.2023 at around 7.00 pm her
daughter/victim had gone somewhere else without informing anyone at
home and on searching the whereabouts of the girl, she came to know
2
that some unknown person had allured and kidnapped the minor girl,
on which, initially offence u/s 363 IPC was registered against the
unknown person. Thereafter, during investigation when the girl was
presented at the Police Station by the mother, she was recovered from
her mother and on enquiry, the girl has stated that the accused took her
away to Bilaspur, Raipur, Pune, Maharashtra and kept her with him and
continuously subjected her physical relations, due to which, she
became pregnant and gave birth to a son. Thus on the basis of girl’s
statement, further offences u/s 366, 376(2)(n) and Section 4 & 6 have
been added.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the age of the
prosecutrix has not been proved, she was major and had voluntarily
accompanied the applicant and visited many places with him without
raising any alarm. He further submits that statement of the victim has
been recorded under Section 164 CrPC wherein she has admitted the
fact that she had performed marriage with the applicant and gave birth
to a child, thereby she was a consenting party. He further submits that
the applicant is in jail since 21.04.2025, the trial has not yet
commenced and looking to the facts situation of the case the applicant
may be enlarged on bail.
4. Per contra, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application
and submits that the victim girl was minor and she has supported the
prosecution case in her statement u/s 161 CrPC.
3
5. On 12.06.2025, the mother along with victim girl had appeared
before this Court and submitted that they have no objection if the bail is
granted to the applicant.
6. Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for
the parties and the fact that the charge sheet has been filed and the trial
has not yet commenced, I am not inclined to release the applicant on
regular bail, at this stage. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected.
Sd/-
(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal)
Judge
Rao