Ramesh Kumar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

This is the third bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Shuraksha Sanhita for grant of regular bail to the applicants who have been arrested on 08/08/2024 in connection with Crime No. 123/2024, registered at Police Station Chaal, District Raigarh, C.G. for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376 (2) (n) of the IPC;

¶18

2 / 5

¶19

Sections 4 & 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Section 3 (2) (5) of the Schedule Caste & Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

¶20

Earlier the First Bail Application bearing M.Cr.C. No.8401 of 2024 was dismissed as withdrawn on 09/01/2025. Thereafter, the second bail application bearing M.Cr.C. No.5900 of 2025 was dismissed on merits by order dated 29/07/2025.

¶21

The prosecution story in brief is that a report was lodged by the complainant alleging that the Grandmother of the prosecutrix filed a missing report of hear grand-daughter at Police Station Chall, Raigarh on 25/06/2024 that on 11/05/2024 when she came to Gharghoda Court for meeting with her son because her son came from District Jail Raigarh to Gharghoda Sessions Court and when she returned her home, she saw that her grand-daughter was not present at her home. Thereafter, she filed a complaint against the unknown persons alleging that her granddaughter has been enticed away. On the basis of the said complaint an FIR has been registered and the applicants were arrested on 08/08/2024.

¶22

Learned counsel for the applicants would submit that the prosecutrix was recovered from the possession of the other accused namely Lochan @ Karan after two months from the date of incident and she was not recovered from the possession of the present applicants. He would next contend that the DNA report has come and which would show that the present applicants are not the biological father of the child. He would next contend that the FSL report is also negative. He would further

¶23

3 / 5

¶24

contend that there are total 32 witnesses in the present case, however, till date not a single witness has been examined before the trial Court. He would lastly contend that the applicants are in jail since 08/08/2024 and the charge-sheet in this case has been filed, therefore, the applicants may be released on bail.

¶25

Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bail.

¶26

On 02/09/2025 notice was issued to the victim for her appearance before this Court and the service report shows that the notice has been duly served upon the victim, however, neither the victim nor her guardian appeared before this Court when the matter was taken up for hearing.

¶27

In view of this Ms. Maya Chaturvijani, Advocate has been appointed as Amicus Curiae on behalf of the Victim. She also opposes the prayer for grant of bail to the applicants.

¶28

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. Considering the entire facts & circumstances of the case particularly the fact that the DNA report of the applicants show that they are not biological father of the child and also the fact that the date of incident was on 11^th of May, 2024, however, the FIR was lodged on 25/06/2024 that too against the unknown persons and lastly considering the fact that the applicants are in jail since 08/08/2024 and the charge-sheet in this case has been filed, I am inclined to release the applicants on bail. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

¶29

Let applicants Ramesh Kumar & Samim Nadaf @ Bijnesh , involved in Crime No.123/2024, for the aforesaid offence in the police station

¶30

4 / 5

¶31

Chaal, District Raigarh, C.G., be released on bail on each of them furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶32

(i) The applicants 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.

¶33

(ii) the applicants shall remain present before the trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial Court may proceed against them under Section 269 of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023.

¶34

(iii) In case, the applicants misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their presence proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS, 2023 is issued and the applicants fail to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial Court shall initiate proceedings against them, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023.

¶35

(iv) The applicants 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

¶36

5 / 5

¶37

Section 351 of BNSS 2023. If in the opinion of the trial Court absence of the applicants are deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial Court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against them in accordance with law.

¶38

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

¶39

SD/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE

¶40

ashu

Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh Kumar 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. Reeta Baid Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Gram Bharti Janjati Seva Mandal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

M/S Gagan Fuels (a Proprietorship Concern), Torwa Bilaspur Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Gayatri Prasad Singh Vs Union of India

Smt. Nishika Singh Chandel Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dinesh Gupta Vs State of Chhattisgarh