Amirchand Kujur Vs State of Chhattisgarh

1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 43/2025 registered at Police Station -Balrampur, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.), for the offence

¶16

2

¶17

punishable under Sections 376, 376(3), 376(2)(n), 313 & 493 of IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act, 2012.

¶18

2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 11.07.2024, prosecutrix lodged the complaint in Police Station Balrampur, alleging that in August 2014, when she was studying in 08^th Class while staying with her brother in a rented house in Mariyam Para Balrampur, during that time, she met with the applicant. The applicant was committed sexual intercourse with her since 2014 on the pretext of marriage. On the basis of complaint, offence was registered against the applicant and he was arrested for the aforesaid offence.

¶19

3. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case, with no connection to the alleged offence. It is further submitted that there is inordinate delay in lodging of FIR, as the alleged incident dates back to 2014, whereas the FIR was registered on 18.04.2025. Being a government employee, the applicant’s service will be adversely affected due to the false case registered against him. The victim attained majority in 2018, but the FIR was lodged in 2025. The applicant has no criminal antecedents and has been in jail since 18.04.2025 and the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude. Therefore, he prays for grant of regular bail to the applicant.

¶20

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposed the bail application, submitting that at the time of incident, the victim was minor and the applicant has forcibly committed

¶21

3

¶22

sexual intercourse with her on false pretext due to which she became pregnant and later her pregnancy was aborted. The trial has not yet commenced, therefore, at this stage, he may not be enlarged on bail.

¶23

5. On 30.06.2025, victim appeared virtually from the concerned DLSA and raised her objection in granting bail to the applicant.

¶24

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

¶25

7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the offence, and also taking into account the inordinate delay in filing the report, coupled with the fact that the applicant is in jail since 18.04.2025, and the trial has yet to commence, without commenting on the merits of the case, I find it appropriate to release the applicant on bail.

¶26

8. Accordingly, the application is allowed and it is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court. Applicant is directed to appear before the trial Court on each and every date to be given to him by the said Court till disposal of the trial. It is made clear that any observation made by this Court in this order shall not affect the trial of the case.

¶27

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

¶28

(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge

Amirchand Kujur v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amirchand Kujur 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

Abdul Gani Vs Sameer Rahmani

Maniram Kuswaha Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Xyz Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Karan @ Dularelal Agariya Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Salman Khan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sachin Das Vs State of Chhattisgarh