The High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed three concurrent bail applications (MCRC Nos. 3472, 3924, 3932 of 2024) filed by Mukesh Kujur, Mithlesh Tigga, and Rajendra Tigga. The court rejected the bail pleas, noting the gravity of the charges involving sexual assault on minors and the serious nature of the allegations.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
MCRC No. 3472 of 2024
----Applicant
Versus
---- Respondent
MCRC No. 3924 of 2024
----Applicant
Versus
---- Respondent
MCRC No. 3932 of 2024
----Applicant
Versus
---- Respondent
CAUSE TITLE DOWNLOADED FROM CIS PERIPHERY
MCRC No. 3472 of 2024
For Applicant : None For State : Mr. R.N Pusty, GA and Mr. S.S Baghel Deputy GA
2
MCRC No. 3924 of 2024 & MCRC No.3932 of 2024
For Applicant : Mr. Anuj Kumar Pandey, Advocate appears on behalf of Mr. Rajendra Patel, Advcoate For State : Mr. R.N Pusty, GA and Mr. S.S Baghel Deputy GA
Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Order On Board
03.06.2024
1. Since all the cases are arising out of same crime number, they are being disposed of by this common order.
2. The relevant details of the accused/applicants are as follows:-
| S.No. | Name of applicant | Crime No. and Police Station |
Offence |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. | Mukesh Kujur (Fourth bail application) |
Crime No.124/2021 registered at PS Sitapur, District Surguja (C.G) |
Section 376(D), 341, 506, 365(2) of the IPC and Sections 4 & 6 of the POCSO Act. |
| 2. | Mithlesh Tigga (Third bail application) |
Crime No.124/2021 registered at PS Sitapur, District Surguja (C.G) |
Section 365, 376(D), 376 (D) (A), 341, 506 & 506-B of the IPC and Sections 4 & 6 of the POCSO Act. |
| 3. | Rajendra Tigga (Second bail application) |
Crime No.124/2021 registered at PS Sitapur, District Surguja (C.G) |
Section 365, 376(D), 376 (D) (A), 341, 506 & 506-B of the IPC and Sections 4 & 6 of the POCSO Act. |
3. Learned counsel for the applicants Mithlesh Tigga and Rajendra Tigga submits that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the case. He would submit that both the prosecutrix have not supported the case of the prosecution and
3
there is no substantial progress in the trial and considering the long pretrial detention of the applicants, they may be enlarged on bail.
4. In the application filed by the applicant Mukesh Kujur, the similar ground has been stated.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposes the aforesaid submissions. He submits that the victim (PW-1) categorically deposed at para 4 of her statement that all the accused persons, in a forceful manner, abducted both the victim girls and took them to a forest. He also submits that the accused persons threatened to kill the victims by showing a knife and forcefully made them drink liquor, and thereafter, committed rape with them. He has also drawn attention towards para 2 of the statement of Sarpanch (PW-4) of the village, wherein he has supported the case of the prosecution. Lastly, he submits that appreciation of evidence is not required at this juncture as the trial is already in progress. Hence, he prays to dismiss the applications.
6. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, particularly considering the quality of evidence and backdrop of the case and further considering the gravity of the offence and that the allegations are serious in nature, this Court is not inclined to release the applicants on bail at this stage.
7. Accordingly, all the bail applications are dismissed .
Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge
Priyanka
1 issue framed by the court
Whether bail applications of three accused persons facing charges of rape and sexual offences should be admitted.
Mukesh Kujur
Mithlesh Tigga
Rajendra Tigga
State Of Chhattisgarh
Deepak Kumar Tiwari
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
