Dismissed¶26

Balram Kumar Sao v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC8 Jun 2025MCRC/2675/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular bail refused — second bail application under S.483 BNSS, 2023; offences under Ss.363, 366, 376(2)(n), 34 IPC and S.5(l)/6 POCSO Act; Crime No. 518/2023, PS Ambikapur, District Sarguja; victim recovered from applicant at Dhanbad 21.08.2023, arrested 22.08.2023; victim and mother no objection via virtual mode; first bail rejected 28.02.2024 in M.Cr.C. No. 687/2024; direction to expedite trial; Parth Prateem Sahu, J.; NAFR; keywords: bail, POCSO, kidnapping, S.376(2)(n) IPC, Chhattisgarh High Court.

What did the court decide?

Regular bail refused; sole operative direction is to the learned Trial Court to expedite the trial. ¶26

Balram Kumar Sao Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Chhattisgarh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Regular bail refused; sole operative direction is to the learned Trial Court to expedite the trial.

¶26

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant Balram Kumar Sao, in custody since 22.08.2023 in connection with Crime No. 518/2023 (Ss.363, 366, 376(2)(n), 34 IPC and S.5(l)/6 POCSO Act), should be enlarged on regular bail under S.483 BNSS, 2023.

¶17

Court's answer

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of allegations, submissions of counsel and documents enclosed, the Court did not find the present to be a fit case to allow the application for grant of bail; bail refused.

¶24

Ratio / Principle

In view of the applicant's custody since 22.08.2023, the learned Trial Court was directed to expedite the trial.

¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Chhattisgarh High Court (Single Bench, Parth Prateem Sahu, J.), order dated 09/06/2025 in MCRC No. 2675 of 2025, Balram Kumar Sao v. State of Chhattisgarh — Second regular-bail application under S.483 BNSS, 2023; first application (M.Cr.C. No. 687/2024) already dismissed on merits by order dated 28.02.2024. Prosecution case: missing report by the victim's father led to FIR under S.363 IPC; the minor victim (State's submission: aged less than 15 years) was recovered from the applicant's possession at Dhanbad on 21.08.2023; charges enhanced to Ss.363, 366, 376(2)(n), 34 IPC and S.5(l)/6 POCSO Act, 2012 (Crime No. 518/2023, PS Ambikapur, District Sarguja); arrest 22.08.2023. State alleged allurement for marriage followed by forceful sexual intercourse and that the victim supported the prosecution in her trial-court evidence; applicant claimed false implication and that the victim had not supported the prosecution. Victim and her mother appeared virtually from D.L.S.A. Ambikapur and raised no objection to bail. Held: taking into account the facts and circumstances, nature of allegations, submissions and documents, this was not a fit case for grant of bail — application dismissed; Trial Court directed to expedite the trial in view of custody since 22.08.2023. (NAFR)

2025:CGHC:22735

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

MCRC No. 2675 of 2025

¶6

1 - Balram Kumar Sao S/o Heeralal Sao Aged About 21 Years R/o Village Singpur, Near House Of Hemlal Sahu, Giridih, Jharkhand At Present Resident Of Near Chandani Chowk House Of Mistri Ien P.S. Kotwali, District Sarguja, Chhattisgarh.

¶7

... Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Ambikapur, District Sarguja, Chhattisgarh.

¶10

... Respondent

¶11

For Applicant : Ms. Sangeeta Soni, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Keshav Prasad Gupta, Advocate

¶12

SB: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge

¶13

ORDER ON BOARD

¶14

09/06/2025

¶15

This is the second bail application. The first bail application was dismissed on merits vide order dated 28.02.2024 in M.Cr.C. No. 687/2024.

¶16

SHUBHAM DEY Digitally signed by SHUBHAM DEY

¶17

This bail application is filed by the applicant under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 518/2023 registered at Police Station – Ambikapur, District – Sarguja, Chhattisgarh for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376 (2) (n), 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Section 5 (l)/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

¶18

¶19

Case of prosecution is that, father of the victim lodged missing report in the concerned police station stating that his daughter is found missing from the house. Based upon which, initially, the F.I.R. was registered for the offence under Section 363 of the IPC. During the course of investigation, victim was recovered from Dhanbad from the possession of the applicant on 21.08.2023, statement of victim was recorded and thereafter, the other offences were also added. Applicant was arrested on 22.08.2023.

¶20

Learned counsel for the applicant submit that applicant is innocent, he has been falsely implicated in the instant crime, he has not committed any offence as alleged. She submits that the victim has not supported the case of prosecution. Applicant is in jail since 22.08.2023, hence, he may be enlarged on bail.

¶21

On the other hand, learned State counsel vehemently opposes the submission made by learned counsel for the applicant and would submit that there are specific allegations against the applicant of alluring the minor child aged about less than 15 years for marriage and thereafter, committing forceful sexual intercourse with her. The victim also stood to the allegations in her evidence recorded before the learned Trial Court.

¶22

Pursuant to the notice issued by this Court, victim along with her mother appeared before this Court through virtual mode from D.L.S.A. Ambikapur, District – Sarguja and they submit that they are having no objection in grant of bail to the applicant.

¶23

I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties.

¶24

Taking into consideration, facts and circumstances of the case, nature of allegations, submission of learned counsel for the respective parties, documents enclosed along with the bail application, I do not find present to be a fit case to allow the application for grant of bail.

¶25

¶26

Accordingly, the application for grant of bail is dismissed. However, considering the submission of the counsel for the applicant that the applicant is in jail since 22.08.2023, learned Trial Court is directed

¶27

to expedite the trial.

¶28

Certified copy as per rules.

¶29

Sd/(Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge

¶30

Dey

Balram Kumar Sao v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balram Kumar Sao 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

Ashish Singh Chauhan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Vijay Agrawal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Naihar Sai Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Kaoushaliya Devi Vs Shri Madhusudan Singh

Smt. Gyanwati Chouhan Vs Ishatdev Kushwaha

Smt. Vandana Mishra Vs Ishatdev Kushwaha