Dismissed¶27

Toran Sonkar v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC17 Feb 2025MCRC/418/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chhattisgarh High Court, Bilaspur; MCRC No. 418 of 2025; Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas; decided 18.02.2025; regular bail refused under Section 483 BNSS 2023; accused Toran Sonkar and Chetan Navrange; Crime No. 35/2024, PS Chhuriya, Rajnandgaon; charges: 363, 376(3), 376-DA, 370, 372 IPC, Sections 4 and 6 POCSO Act, Section 3(2)(V) Atrocities Act; minor Class IX victim; gravity of offence; custody since 02.03.2024; bail rejected.

What did the court decide?

From perusal of the case diary and materials collected during investigation, the victim has narrated the entire incident and the manner in which the offence was committed. ¶26

Toran Sonkar Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Chhattisgarh HC (2025)

2025:CGHC:8443

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

MCRC No. 418 of 2025

¶6

1 - Toran Sonkar S/o Girvar Sonkar Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Khudmuda, Ward No. 16, P.S. Umleshwar, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh

¶7

2 - Chetan Navrange S/o Bhagdas Navrange Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Bholesur, Ward No. 03, P.S. Suleha, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh

¶8

... Applicants

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Chhuriya, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh

¶11

---- Non-applicant

¶12

For Applicants : Shri Asseem Bhagwat Gopal, Advocate. For Non-applicant : Shri Sanjeev Pandey, Dy. Advocate General

¶13

Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas

¶14

Order On Board

¶15

18.02.2025

¶16

KISHORE KUMAR DESHMUKH

¶17

The applicants have preferred this first bail application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail as they are in jail since 02.03.2024 in connection with Crime No. 35/2024 registered at Police Station Chhuriya, District – Rajnandgaon (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 363,

¶18

Digitally signed by KISHORE KUMAR DESHMUKH Date: 2025.02.18 18:03:37 +0530

¶19

¶20

376(3), 376-DA, 370, 372 of IPC, Section 4,6 of the POCSO Act and Section 3(2)(V) of the Atrocities Act.

¶21

Case of the prosecution, in brief is that the victim’s father lodged complaint alleging that some unknown person has lured the victim and taken her away from the lawful custody of her guardian. It is also the case of the prosecution that the victim is the student of Class IXth. When the victim’s father has gone to Nagpur on 12.02.2024, then he received information over telephone that the victim has left the house on 10.02.2024 at 12:00 Clock and did not return back. Thereafter, he and his wife made an attempt to search the victim. When they failed to trace out the victim, they lodged the complaint. Initially the FIR was lodged under Section 363 of the IPC. After investigation and recording of the statement of the victim, the offence under Sections 376(3), 376-DA, 370, 372 of the IPC and Section 4,6 of the POCSO Act and Section 3(2) (V) of the Atrocities Act were added.

¶22

Learned counsel for the applicants would submit that there is no allegation against the applicants with regard to offence under Section 376 of the IPC. The victim has not raised alarm at any point of time and she was in touch with her brother, still she has not disclosed anything to him which creates doubt over the prosecution story. The applicants have been falsely implicated in the case, they are in custody since 02.03.2024, therefore, prayed that the applicants may be released on bail.

¶23

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application.

¶24

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

¶25

¶26

From perusal of the diary and the materials collected during the investigation, it is found that the victim has narrated the entire incident and manner in which the offence has been committed. Looking to the gravity of the offence and considering the victim is minor, I am not inclined to release the applicants on bail.

¶27

Accordingly, the bail application filed by the applicants is liable to be and is hereby rejected.

¶28

(Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge

¶29

Deshmukh

Toran Sonkar v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Toran Sonkar 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

Smt. Sheela Agrawal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Milibai Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Akhilesh Kumar Bharadwaj Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shailendra Kumar Baghel Vs Awadh Ram Narang

Manisha Sharma Vs Umesh Kumar Dewangan

Smt. Rama Meshram Vs State of Chhattisgarh