Dismissed¶22

Roshan Anchal v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC18 Mar 2025MCRC/1405/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chhattisgarh High Court, Bilaspur; MCRC No. 1405 of 2025; decided 19/03/2025 by Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J.; regular bail application rejected; applicant Roshan Anchal aged about 19 years; Crime No. 205/2024, Police Station Padmanabhpur, District Durg; offences under Sections 363, 366, 376(2)(n), 344 & 506 part II IPC and Section 6 POCSO Act, 2012 (initially also Sections 323 IPC and Section 4 POCSO); minor victim aged about 14 years; allegations of kidnapping, confinement, assault and repeated rape; external injuries on victim; victim and mother objected to bail through virtual mode from DLSA Durg; consent plea raised by applicant's counsel; applicant in custody since 17.07.2024; trial in progress.

What did the court decide?

The Court is not inclined to release the applicant on regular bail and rejects the bail application. ¶22

Roshan Anchal Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Chhattisgarh HC (2025)

2025:CGHC:13201

NAFR

VAIBHAV SINGH

Digitally signed by VAIBHAV SINGH Date: 2025.03.25 11:15:28 +0530

¶6

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶7

MCRC No. 1405 of 2025

¶8

Roshan Anchal S/o Kishan Anchal Aged About 19 Years R/o Ward No. 49, Jogi Nagar, Padmanabhpur, Police Station Padmanabhpur, District Durg Chhattisgarh.

¶9

...Applicant

¶10

versus

¶11

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Padmanabhpur, District Durg Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent

¶12

For Applicant : Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, Advocate For Non-applicant : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Government Advocate.

¶13

Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. Order on Board

¶14

19/03/2025

¶15

Pursuant to the order dated 19.02.2025, the victim along with her mother appeared through virtual mode from DLSA, Durg, and raised objection in granting bail to the applicant, their objection is taken on record.

¶16

This is the first bail application before this Court filed by the applicant for grant of regular bail. The applicant has been arrested on 17.07.2024 in connection with Crime No. 205/2024 registered at Police Station Padmanabhpur, District Durg (C.G.) for the offence under Sections 363,366, 376(2)(n), 323 & 506 of IPC and Section 4 & 6 of POCSO Act, 2012.

¶17

¶18

The case of the prosecution is that on 15.05.2024 the father of the victim has lodged a missing report that her minor daughter aged about 14 years is missing since 14.05.2025 and her whereabout could not be traced out. The FIR has been registered against unknown person. During the investigation the victim was recovered on 16.07.2024 from the house of the applicant, when she was medically examined by the doctor certain external injuries have been found on her body. After complition of investigation, charge-sheet has been filed against the applicant for the offence under Section 363, 366,376(2)(n), 344 & 506 part II of IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act, 2012. In which the applicant has been arrested on 17.07.2024.

¶19

Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the victim was a consenting party and she herself eloped with the applicant and residing with him without raising any objection. There is no legally admissible evidence with respect to her age and since she was the consenting party in making physical relation with the applicant, no prima facie offence is appears to be made out against him. The applicant is in jail since 17.07.2024, final adjudication of the case will take its own time, therefore, he may be enlarged on bail.

¶20

On the other hand learned counsel for the State opposes and has submitted that the trial of the case is in progress and witnesses are regularly being examined. He further submits that from the birth certificate issued by the competent authority, age of the victim comes to about 14 years and the external injuries found on the body of the victim and she alleged that the applicant tied her hand and leg and beaten her and she was subjected to rape by the applicant repeatedly. It is also alleged that she was being confined in the house of the applicant and she was helpless in that situation and since a minor victim was subjected to kidnap and rape and also subjected to assault by the applicant, he is not entitled for bail.

¶21

¶22

Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, considering the nature of allegation and material collected during the investigation, further considering the age of the victim and the external injuries found on her body, trial of the case is in progress, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail, Therefore, his bail application is rejected.

¶23

Sd/-

¶24

(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge

¶25

Vaibhav

Roshan Anchal v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Roshan Anchal v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jainarayan Chandra Vs State of Chhattisgarh

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Subal Kumar Choudhary @ Subi Babu

Dilip Sidar Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Arvind Yadav Urf Arvind Yadu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Idris @ Ibbu Khan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Vinod Singh Thakur Vs State of Chhattisgarh