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

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Regular bail granted: applicant to be released on execution of a personal bond of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety to the satisfaction of the concerned trial court, subject to conditions — (i) regular appearance before the trial court unless exempted; (ii) no attempt to tamper with prosecution witnesses; (iii) no communication/contact in any manner with the prosecutrix, her family members and the witnesses cited in the charge sheet, directly or indirectly.

Issue for consideration

Whether regular bail under Section 483 BNSS should be granted to the applicant, in custody in connection with Crime No. 111/2024 (Sections 376(2)(n), 506/34 IPC; Sections 4, 6 & 17 POCSO Act, 2012), who claims to have been falsely implicated.

Court's answer

On due consideration of the rival submissions and the facts that there is no such allegation against the applicant, she is in jail since 27.11.2024, the charge sheet has been filed, and final disposal of the trial is likely to take sufficiently long time, the bail application deserves to be allowed and is accordingly allowed.

Ratio / Principle

Release on bail directed upon execution of a personal bond of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety to the satisfaction of the concerned trial court, subject to conditions of regular appearance before the trial court and abstention from tampering with prosecution witnesses.

Key takeaways

As a condition of bail, the applicant is directed not to communicate/contact in any manner with the prosecutrix, her family members and the witnesses cited in the charge sheet, directly or indirectly.ratio¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail — Regular bail under S. 483 BNSS — Applicant, mother of co-accused Suhel Khan, arraigned in Crime No. 111/2024, P.S. Kusmi, Balrampur-Ramanujganj, for offences under Ss. 376(2)(n), 506/34 IPC and Ss. 4, 6 & 17 POCSO Act, 2012 — Prosecution case: co-accused had sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix on the pretext of marriage, resulting in pregnancy — Counsel urged false implication, delay of about 7 months in lodging the FIR and absence of the applicant's name therein; applicant in custody since 27.11.2024; charge sheet filed — Victim and her father appeared and objected — HELD: bail allowed, there being no such allegation against the applicant, custody since 27.11.2024, charge sheet filed and trial likely to take sufficiently long time — Release directed on personal bond of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety, with conditions of regular appearance, non-tampering with witnesses, and no contact with the prosecutrix, her family members and charge-sheet witnesses.

1

2025:CGHC:9269

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

MCRC No. 455 of 2025

1 - Khurshida W/o Maksud Khan Aged About 34 Years R/o VillageKarkali, P.S.- Kusmi, District- Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.)

... Applicant(s)

versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S.- Kusmi, District- BalrampurRamanujganj (C.G.)

	... Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s)	: Shri Akath Kumar Yadav, Advocate
For Respondent/State	: Ms. Monika Thakur, PL

(Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma)

Order on Board

21/02/2025

The applicant has filed this bail application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrrik Suraksha Sanhita for grant of regular bail as she is in custody in connection with Crime No. 111/2024 registered at police station Kusmi, Balrampur-Ramanujganj (CG) for the offence punishable under Sections 376(2)(n), 506/34 of IPC and Sections 4, 6 & 17 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

2

Prosecution case in brief is that father of the prosecutrix has lodged a written report alleging that the co-accused Suhel Khan, who is the son of the applicant has committed sexual intercourse with her daughter on the pretext of marriage and she became pregnant.

Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. He submits that there was a delay of about 7 months in lodging the FIR and in the FIR there is no allegation nor in the written report, name of the applicant finds place against the applicant. He submits that the applicant is in jail since 27.11.2024, the charge sheet has been filed and the trial is likely to take some time, she is ready and willing to comply with any of the conditions which may be imposed upon her and thus, it is submitted that the application be allowed and the applicant be released on bail.

Learned counsel for the respondent/State, on the other hand, has opposed the bail application.

Victim and her father were present before this Court and have raised objection.

Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

On due consideration of the rival submissions and the fact that there is no such allegation against the applicant, she is in jail since 27.11.2024; the charge sheet has been filed; the final disposal of the trial is likely to take sufficiently long time, the present application deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, her bail application is allowed.

It is directed that in the event of applicant executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety to the satisfaction of the

3

concerned trial court, she shall be released on bail on the following conditions:

i) He/she shall appear before the trial court regularly on each and every date, unless exempted from appearance.

ii) He/she shall not make any attempt to tamper with the prosecution witnesses.

Iii) the applicant is directed not to communicate/contact in any manner with the prosecutrix, her family members and the witnesses cited in the charge sheet any other person concerned or attempt to ask for any favour in the trial directly or indirectly.

Sd/-

(Arvind Kumar Verma)

Judge

Digitally signed by SUGUNA SUGUNA DUBEY DUBEY Date: 2025.02.28 10:47:35 +0530