Nikku Rajwade Vs State of Chhattisgarh

The applicant has preferred this first bail application under Section 483 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sahita, 2023 for grant of regular bail as he has been arrested on 8-1-2024 in connection with Crime No. 8 of 2024 registered at Police Station – Chirmiri, District Manendragarh, Chirmiri, Bharatpur (MCB) (CG) for alleged commission of offences under Sections 363, 366, 376/109 of IPC and Section 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

¶14

2 / 3

¶15

The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the father of the victim lodged a complaint in Police Station alleging that the victim who is studying 10^th Class has left the house on 6-1-2024 at about 10’O clock with school bag for attending the school, but when she did not come back to the house, then he inquired about his daughter. On being inquired he was informed that victim has not come to the school and after inquiring from school, it was found that the victim is not traceable, therefore, report was lodged stating the victim was abducted and taken away by some one and thereafter report was lodged by the complainant in Police Station, Chirmiri, District MCB On the basis of which initially offence under Section 363 of the Cr.P.C was registered against the applicant and thereafter during investigation victim was recovered and thereafter her statement was recorded by the Police Station on the basis of which offence under Section 366, 376 of IPC and Section 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 were registered against the applicant and later on by way of supplementary charge sheet, offence under Section 109 of IPC was registered against the applicant and one other co-accused Tirath Kumar Rajwade. It is further case of the prosecution that the accused has taken the victim to Baikuntpur by bus and thereafter they have taken the victim to one house where no one is residing and the accused Nikku Rajwade closed the door and started teasing her and other co-accused Tirath Kumar Rajwade commuitted the office agaisnt the victim, as such present applicant Nikku Rajwade is involved in ,commission of rape with the aid of Section 109 of IPC. Thereafter, the victims opened the door and came to their house by Bus/ The victims were subjected to medical examination.

¶16

Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that in the present case two victims are alleged to have been involved by the prosecution and the prosecution has already submitted charge sheet, therefore, no custodial interrogation is required and both the victims have been examined before the

¶17

3 / 3

¶18

trial Court and in the entire evidence they have not stated about the present applicant Nikku Rajwade He would further submit that the applicant is in jail since 8-1-2024 and trial is likely to take sometime, therefore, the applicant may be granted bail.

¶19

On the other hand, learned State counsel though opposes the bail application of the applicant would submit that the present applicant was involved in the said offence and the victim in her evidence recorded before the trial court has categorically stated in para 4 of the evidence that it is denied that the present applicant Nikku Rajwade has touched her and when she told him that she will huge and cry, therefore, present applicant is afraid, it means involvement of the applicant is very much there and even otherwise, the applicant was involved with the aid of Section 109 of the IPC. She would further submit that prosecution case prima facie suggests that the applicant abetted the other co-accused to commit the said offence by providing assistance, therefore, it is not a fit case where the applicant should be enlarged on bail.

¶20

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

¶21

RAVVA SATYANARAYANA RAJU

¶22

Considering the submissions of the parties, materials so collected by the prosecution which clearly suggests that some material is against the appellant for involving him in commission of ofefence. and also further considering the gravity of the offence and the manner in which the victim was sexually exploited by the other co-accused with the aid of present applicant, I am of the view that this is not a fit case where the applicant should be enlarged on bail.

¶23