Naveen Kumar Kashyap S/o Asturam Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:11771

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶5

MCRC No. 1145 of 2025

¶6

Naveen Kumar Kashyap S/o Asturam R/o Village Jhartarai Police Station Bastar District - Bastar (C.G.) ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer Police Station Magarlod District - Dhamtari (C.G.) ... Respondent

¶7

For Applicant : Mr. Sunil Verma, Advocate appears on behalf of Ms. Lata Nayak, Advocate For Respondent/State :Ms. Sunita Manikpuri, Deputy Government Advocate

¶8

Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma

¶9

Order on Board

¶10

10.03.2025

¶11

Heard Mr. Sunil Verma, Advocate for the Applicant and Ms. Sunita Manikpuri, Deputy Govt. Advocate.

¶12

Also heard father of the victim who appeared through video conferencing DLSA, Dhamtari.

¶13

The applicant has preferred this first bail application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 for grant of bail as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No.237 of 2024, registered at Police Station- Magarlod, District Dhamtari (C.G.) for the offence

¶14

2

¶15

punishable under Section 137, 87, 64(2)(n) of BNSS and Section 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act.

¶16

Brief facts of this case is that on 11.07.2024 action has been taken by the Police of Police Station Magarlod Chhattisgarh against the applicant on the ground that the father of the minor victim lodged a verbal report at the Police Station Magarlod on 11.07.2024. That on 24.06.2024 an unknown person lured and kidnapped his minor daughter. The police of Police Station Magarlod, has registered the case for an offence punishable under Section 137, 87, 64(2)(n) of BNSS and Section 4 and 6 of POCSO Act against the applicant.

¶17

Learned counsel for the applicant contended that, the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the alleged crime, he has not committed any offence as alleged against him. He further contended that the false seizure memo has been prepared by the Police of Police Station Magarld to rope the present applicant in the present case. The applicant is in jail since 19.07.2024 and it will take sufficient time for the trial to be concluded so looking to the detention period of applicant he may be enlarged on bail.

¶18

Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application submitted by the applicant.

¶19

I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the case and other materials available on record.

¶20

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and further considering the nature of offence, particularly to the fact that the applicant is in jail since 19.07.2024 and there was an affair between the applicant and the victim. The victim

¶21

3

¶22

was approximately 16 year old and the accused applicant was 24 year of age. This court is in favor of granting bail to the applicant.

¶23

Let the applicant involved in Crime No.237/2024, registered at Police Station- Magarlod District Dhamtari (C.G.) for the aforementioned offence, be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 10,000/- with one local sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions :

¶24

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶25

(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 of BNS, 2023.

¶26

(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 84 of the BNSS, 2023 is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of BNS, 2023.

¶27

(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 351 of BNSS, 2023. If in the opinion of the trial

¶28

4

¶29

court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶30

Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information and compliance forthwith.

¶31

sd/-

¶32

(Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge

¶33

alfiza

Naveen Kumar Kashyap S/o Asturam v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Naveen Kumar Kashyap S/o Asturam v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anjani Kumar Shriwas Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Samayjan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ankit Kumar Dheemar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Badal Navrange Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Tujfan Alias Toofan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ajeet Kumar Paikara Vs State of Chhattisgarh