Allowed

Kuldeep Baik v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC21 Nov 2024MCRC/5290/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular bail application under Section 483 BNSS in a POCSO/IPC rape case involving a minor prosecutrix who conceived. Applicant cited consensual relationship and an adverse DNA report; the court granted bail considering the relationship's length and custody since arrest.

What did the court decide?

Applicant to be released on personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with one like surety, subject to non-tampering, fair-trial, and attendance conditions.

Kuldeep Baik Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

1 / 3

2024:CGHC:45933

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

MCRC No. 5290 of 2024

¶6

Kuldeep Baik S/o Shri Husaini Ram Aged About 20 Years By Caste- Uraon, R/o Village- Aara, Jarhapara, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh

¶7

... Applicant

¶8

versus

¶9

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Sitapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh

¶10

... Respondent

¶11

(Cause title taken from Case Information System)

¶12

For Applicant : Mr. Rajendra Patel, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Santosh Bharat, Panel Lawyer

¶13

Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board

¶14

22/11/2024

¶15

VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN

¶16

This is the first bail application filed by the applicant under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail. The applicant has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 62/2024, registered at Police Station Sitapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh for the offence under Sections 363, 366, 376(2)(n) of Indian Penal Code and Sections 5(j-ii)(l) & 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

¶17

Digitally signed by VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2024.11.26 13:16:11 +0530

¶18

2 / 3

¶19

The case of prosecution in brief is that, on 06.03.2024, the father of the prosecutrix lodged a report alleging that from 29.01.2023, the applicant developed physical relation with his minor daughter and committed rape upon her repeatedly on the pretext of marriage, by which her daughter conceived pregnancy. The FIR has been registered against the applicant and he has been arrested on 07.03.2024. After registration, charge sheet has been filed.

¶20

Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the prosecutrix was in love affair with the applicant and both of them were engaged in making consensual physical relation frequently without raising any objection. Even after when she conceived pregnancy, she has not disclosed about the same to anyone and has not protested. Since the father of the prosecutrix disowned their relationship, he lodged the report to the police. There is no present evidence with respect to the age of the prosecutrix in the charge sheet. The applicant is in jail since 07.03.2024 and final adjudication of the case will take its own time, therefore, he may be enlarged on bail. He would also submit that the DNA test was also conducted by the prosecution and the report does not come in positive side. Rather, it has been opined that the present applicant is not the biological father of the child to whom the prosecutrix gave birth. He is in jail since 07.03.2024 and therefore, he may be enlarged on bail.

¶21

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes and has submitted that, from the evidence collected during the investigation, the prosecutrix appears to be minor and she was sexually exploited

¶22

3 / 3

¶23

by the applicant on the pretext of marriage, therefore, the applicant is not entitled for bail.

¶24

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the application.

¶25

Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, considering the nature of allegations and material collected during the investigation, further that the length of relationship between the applicant and the prosecutrix and also that the applicant is in jail since 07.03.2024, without commenting anything on merits, I am inclined to release the applicant on bail.

¶26

Consequently, the present application filed by the applicant for grant of regular bail is hereby allowed .

¶27

It is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Trial Court, on following conditions:-

¶28

(i) He shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such fact to the Court.

¶29

(ii) He shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial.

¶30

(iii) He shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to him by the concerned trial Court till disposal of the trial.

¶31

Sd/(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal)

¶32

Judge

¶33

ved

Kuldeep Baik v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kuldeep Baik v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manoj Das Mahant Vs Sushmita Mahant

Xyz Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Abc Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sameer Khan @ Mohd. Sameer Hussain Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Jayanarayan Kannauje Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Santosh Sonwani Vs State of Chhattisgarh