Allowed

Dharmin Bai v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC3 Feb 2025MCRC/397/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular bail application by two women arrested for harbouring a juvenile accused in a POCSO and SC/ST Atrocities case. Court noted the victim's age, filing of charge-sheet, applicants' incarceration since 19/12/2024 and absence of criminal antecedents, and allowed bail with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applicants released on regular bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- with one surety each, subject to conditions.

Dharmin Bai Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Caste Atrocities | Chhattisgarh HC (2025)

2025:CGHC:6408

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

MCRC No. 397 of 2025

¶6

1 - Dharmin Bai W/o Late Tirath Sahu Aged About 44 Years R/o Rudri, Bajrang Chowk, Police Station Rudri, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh.

¶7

2 - Omni Kumari Sahu D/o Late Tirath Sahu Aged About 21 Years R/o Rudri, Bajrang Chowk, Police Station Rudri, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh.

¶8

... Applicant (s)

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Rudri, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh.

¶11

... Respondent(s)

¶12

For Applicant (s) : Shri Prasoon Agrawal, Advocate. For the State : Ms. Vaishali Mahilong, Panel Lawyer.

¶13

Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma

¶14

Order on Board

¶15

04/02/2025

¶16

The applicants have preferred first bail application under Section 483 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita for grant of regular bail as they have been arrested in connection with Crime No.69/2024 registered at Police Station Rudri, District- Dhamtari (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 296, 115(2), 351(2), 3(5) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, section 17 of POCSO Act and 3(1) (द), 3(1)(ध) 3(2)(v)

¶17

NARESHKUMARKAMDE Digitally signedby NARESHKUMAR KAMDEDate: 2025.02.0718:39:08 +0530

¶18

¶19

and 3(2) (v) (क) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (wrongly mentioned as 6, 17 in the cause title of impugned order page No. 8).

¶20

The case of prosecution in brief is that the prosecutrix and the coaccused who is minor son of the applicant No. 1 and brother of applicant No. 2 were having love affair since 2022. The prosecutrix filed a complaint that the juvenile in conflict with law used to commit forcible sexual intercourse with her since 2023 and for the last time committed forcible sexual inter course with her in March 2024 due to which she became pregnant. Thereafter with the consent of the parties the prosecutrix and the juvenile started living together along with the applicants. It has been alleged that the applicants and the juvenile used to harass and abuse the prosecutrix after which she left their house and filed a complaint before the police on 30.10.2024.

¶21

Learned counsel for the applicants submit that they have been falsely implicated in the present case, victim and juvenile have love affair, at the time of commission of offence victim is aged about 16 years and 9 months. He further submits that the victim attained the age of majority and after pregnant she started living with the juvenile and his family, there is no criminal antecedent against the applicants, trial will take more time to conclude the trial and charge-sheet has been filed, hence, they may be released on bail.

¶22

Learned counsel for the State opposes the submission made by learned counsel for the applicant and submits that offence committed by applicants is of grievous nature, therefore, they are not entitled for grant of bail.

¶23

¶24

Today, victim along with her father appeared before this Court through video conferencing from the concerned DLSA and raised serious objection with regard to grant of bail to the applicants.

¶25

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶26

Taking into consideration and looking to the age of the victim 16 years and 9 month, charge-sheet has already been filed before the trial Court, the main allegation against the accused juvenile (ABC) and the applicants shelter the accused juvenile in her home, looking to the involvement of the applicants being lady and they are in jail since 19/12/2024 and there is no previous criminal antecedent against them, without commenting anything on merits, I am inclined to allow bail application of applicants.

¶27

Accordingly, bail application is allowed . It is directed that applicants Dharmin Bai and Omni Kumari Sahu shall be released on regular bail, on their furnishing bail bond in sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety each in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court on the conditions

¶28

that-

¶29

(i) they shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case.

¶30

(ii) they shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial, and

¶31

(iii) they shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to them by the said Court till disposal of the trial.

¶32

(iv) they shall not involve themselves in any offence of similar nature in future or else this order granting bail to the applicants shall automatically stand cancelled without further reference to the Court.

¶33

Sd/-

¶34

( Arvind Kumar Verma ) JUDGE

¶35

Kamde

Dharmin Bai v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dharmin Bai 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

Vishal Dwivedi Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sonkumar Nishad Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt.Neeta Singh Vs Laxminarayan and Ors.

Shivkumar Jhariya Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Pilaram Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mohd. Mujbil Khan @ Majbal Khan Vs Tanuja