Allowed

Dileshwar Narang v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC1 Apr 2025MCRC/1802/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

First regular bail application of an applicant in custody since January 2025 under Sections 363, 366, 376, 376(2)(n) IPC and Sections 4 & 6 POCSO. Victim objected to bail via virtual appearance; the court nonetheless found him fit for bail considering her age, conduct, year-long cohabitation and child.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail: personal bond Rs. 25,000 with one surety of like sum, subject to trial court satisfaction and hearing attendance.

Dileshwar Narang Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Chhattisgarh HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

Digitally signed by INDRAJEET SAHU Date: 2025.04.02 14:56:11 +0530

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

MCRC No. 1802 of 2025

¶6

1 - Dileshwar Narang S/o Shri Mahetaru Ram Narang Aged About 21 Years R/o Village- Barduli, P.S. Pipariya, Distt.- Kawardha (Kabirdham) (C.G.)

¶7

... Applicant

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station, City Kotwali, DistrictGariyaband (C.G.)

¶10

... Respondent(s) For Applicant : Shri Pragalbh Sharma, Advocate. For State : Ms. Laxmeen Kashyap, Panel Lawyer.

¶11

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

¶12

02.04.2025

¶13

1. Pursuant to the order dated 17.03.2025, the victim and her father appeared before the court through virtual mode from the concerned DLSA and raised objection in granting bail to the applicant.

¶14

2. This is first bail application seeking grant of bail to the Applicant who is in jail since 16.01.2025 in connection with Crime No.32/2024 registered at Police Station City Kotwali, District Gariyaband, for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376, 376(2)(n) IPC and Section 4&6 of POCSO Act.

¶15

3. As per prosecution case, the victim was missing since 13.01.2024 and on 18.01.2024 her grandfather lodged a missing report to the police. The victim was recovered on 15.01.2025 from the possession of

¶16

¶17

applicant. Initially the FIR was recorded for the offence under Section 363 IPC against unknown person, however, after recording statement of the victim, offence of Sections 366, 376(2)(n) IPC and Sections 4 & 6 of POCSO have been added in which the applicant was arrested.

¶18

4. Learned Counsel for the applicant would submit that there is no cogent evidence with respect to age of prosecutrix. She was in love affair with the applicant and herself eloped with the applicant, got married in a Temple and resided for about an year as husband and wife and out of such wedlock she begotten a male child who unfortunately died due to same ailment after seven days of his birth. Therefore, the applicant may be released on bail as final adjudication may take sometime.

¶19

5. On the other hand the counsel for the State opposes the bail application and have submitted that from the material collected during investigation, the prosecutrix appears to be minor on the date of incident and she was kidnapped and subjected to sexual intercourse by the applicant and therefore he is not entitled for bail.

¶20

6. Without commenting on merits, considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the age and conduct of the prosecutrix, the nature of allegation and evidence collected during investigation and also considering the fact that she resided with the applicant for about an year and blessed with child, this Court is of the opinion that present is a fit case where the Applicant can be enlarged on bail.

¶21

7. Accordingly, the application for grant of bail is allowed. It is directed that the Applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 25,000 /- with one surety of the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Trial Court for his appearance on each

¶22

¶23

date of hearing before the trial Court, unless exempted from personal appearance by the said Court.

¶24

8. It is made clear that the observations made by this court is only restricted to the decision of bail application and shall not affect the merits of the case. The trial court is expected to decide the case on its own merit without being influenced by any of the observations made

¶25

hereinabove.

¶26

Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge

¶27

inder

Dileshwar Narang v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dileshwar Narang 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

Laxmikant Thakur @ Ravi Singh Thakur Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Kishan Patel Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rajendra Kumar Gilhare Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shankar Sonwani, Alias Soni Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Bhagmaniya @ Sandhya Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ritik Keshwani @ Babbu Vs State of Chhattisgarh