Suraj Singh Sarthi @ Rahul Sarthi Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:13028

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶5

MCRC No. 1341 of 2025

¶6

Suraj Singh Sarthi @ Rahul Sarthi S/o Shivsingh Sarthi Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Jhalkachhar, Mohalla Ranjana, Thana Dipka, District Korba Chhattisgarh.

¶7

… Applicant

¶8

versus

¶9

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station - Bankimongra, District Korba Chhattisgarh.

¶10

---- Respondent

¶11

(Cause title is taken from the CIS)

¶12

For Applicant : Mr. Vikas Kumar Pandey, Advocate

¶13

For State-Respondent : Ms. Priya Sharma, PL

¶14

Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma

¶15

Order on Board

¶16

19/03/2025

¶17

This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No.119/2024 registered at Police Station Bankimongra, District Korba (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 376(2)(n), 340(4) of IPC and

¶18

Digitally signed VASANT by VASANTKUMAR KUMAR Date:2025.03.20 16:11:54 +0530

¶19

2

¶20

Section 6 of the POCSO Act.

¶21

Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 20.07.2024, the prosecutrix has lodged the report against the applicant stating that he has committed sexual intercourse with her on the pretext of marriage at various places during the period from 01.03.2022 to 15.07.2023, but he refused to marry, therefore, she lodged the FIR against the applicant. After investigation, police arrested the applicant.

¶22

Learned counsel for the applicant contended that, the applicant is innocent and falsely implicated in the instant case. He further contended that after delay of one year, the prosecutrix has lodged false report against the applicant and she has not disclosed the fact after incident. It is further argued that the applicant and the prosecutrix are of same village and due to previous enmity of family members, prosecutrix has lodged false report against the applicant. The applicant never promised the prosecutrix that he will marry with her because the applicant is already married person and there is no connection with the prosecutrix. Charge sheet has already been filed, the applicant is in jail since 17.09.2024 and the trial will take considerable time for its conclusion, therefore the applicant may be released on bail.

¶23

Learned State Counsel opposes the submissions made by

¶24

3

¶25

learned counsel for the applicant and contended that the time of incident, age of the victim was 14-15 years. Applicant is a married person.

¶26

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

¶27

Considering the facts of the case, submission made by learned counsel for the parties and further considering that the trial Court finds that the statement of the prosecutrix and her mother has been recorded in which they have fully supported the prosecution. The evidence of other important witnesses in the case is yet to be recorded, the applicant/accused may influence other witnesses if granted bail at this stage. Since the alleged crime is of serious nature, granting bail to the applicant/accused at this stage does not seem justified. The documents filed with the charge-sheet clearly show the involvement of the applicant/accused prima facie, this Court is of the opinion that is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant on regular bail.

¶28

Accordingly, the bail application of the applicant filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, involved in Crime No.119/2024 registered at Police Station Bankimongra, District Korba (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 376(2)(n), 340(4) of IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, is rejected.

¶29