Kanshi Das Mahant Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:244

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶5

MCRC No. 4741 of 2024 Kanshi Das Mahant S/o Mangal Das Mahant, Aged About 47 Years R/o Kabir Gali Purani Basti, Kharsia, Tahsil - Kharsiya, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through- S.H.O. Kharsiya, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent

¶6

Kanshi Das Mahant S/o Mangal Das Mahant, Aged About 47 Years R/o Kabir Gali Purani Basti, Kharsia, Tahsil - Kharsiya, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

¶7

For Applicant : Mr. Suman Kumar Kesary, Advocate For Respondent/State : Ms. Priya Sharma, P.L.

¶8

Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma

¶9

Order on Board

¶10

02/01/2025

¶11

Mr. Suman Kumar Kesary, counsel for the applicant and Ms. Priya Sharma, P.L. for the State-Respondent.

¶12

In compliance of order dated 03.07.2024, on 29.07.2024, victim’s mother has appeared before this Court through video

¶13

2

¶14

conferencing and has raised objection to release the applicant on bail.

¶15

The applicant has been preferred this first bail application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail as he is arrested in connection with Crime No.334/2024, registered at Police Station- Kharsiya, District Raigarh (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 354, 354(A), 342, 506 of IPC and Sections 8 & 12 of the POCSO Act.

¶16

Brief facts of this case are that, on the date of incident, i.e., 25.04.2024, when the prosecutrix was going in neighbor’s house, then the applicant outrage her modesty, then she told the incident to her mother. Thereafter, the matter was reported before the concerned police station against the applicant and the offence was registered against the applicant for the offence punishable under Sections 354,354(A), 342, 506 of IPC and Sections 8 & 12 of POCSO Act. During investigation, applicant was arrested.

¶17

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant contended that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that the family of the victim resides near the house of the applicant, due to mutual enmity between the two families, there is no communication or

¶18

3

¶19

visitation, father of the victim falsely implicate the applicant in the alleged case. The report has been lodged inordinate delay without any explanation. The medical report has also not supported the case of prosecution. He also contended that the applicant in jail since 06.06.2023 and and trial is likely to take some time, therefore, it is prayed that the applicant may be released on bail.

¶20

Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the bail application submitted by the applicant.

¶21

I have heard learned counsel for both the parties, perused the case diary and other materials available on record.

¶22

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case that the applicant has no criminal antecedent, further that chart-sheet has been filed in the present case and he is in jail since 06.06.2023 and conclusion of the trial may take some more time, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.

¶23

Let the applicant- Kanshi Das Mahant involved in Crime No. 334/2024 registered at Police Station Kharsiya, District Raigarh (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 354,354(A), 342, 506 of IPC and Sections 8 & 12 of POCSO Act, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in

¶24

4

¶25

the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions :

¶26

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶27

(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 of BNS, 2023.

¶28

(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 84 of the BNSS, 2023 is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of BNS, 2023.

¶29

(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 351 of BNSS, 2023. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without

¶30

5

¶31

sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶32

However, this Court hopes and trusts that the trial Court shall make an earnest endeavour to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible, if there is no legal impediment.

¶33

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

¶34

Sd/-

¶35

VASANTKUMAR Digitallysigned byVASANT KUMAR

¶36

(Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge

¶37

Vasant

Kanshi Das Mahant v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kanshi Das Mahant 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

Smt. Sumitra Bai Vs Ram Naresh Dubey

Nand Gopal Koushik Vs Shyam Bahadur Sahu

Gautam Vs Laxmi Prasad Sinha

Ramkishore Dewangan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ramgopal Jaisawal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Surendra Jangde Vs State of Chhattisgarh