Pradeep Kumar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:52735

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

MCRC No. 8566 of 2025

¶6

Pradeep Kumar S/o Shri Suresh Prasad Aged About 21 Years (Wrongly Mentioned As 24 Years In Impugned Order), R/o Village- Navdeeha, P.S. Fatehpur, District- Gaya Currently R/o Jeewandeep Medizone Hospital (J.D.S.), 90 Feet Road, Kanker Baag, Jaganpura, Patna (Bihar).

¶7

... Applicant(s)

¶8

versus

¶9

State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, District Durg C.G.

¶10

... Respondent(s)

¶11

For Applicant(s) : Mr. Jaydeep Singh Yadav, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Government Advocate.

¶12

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

¶13

Order on Board

¶14

29.10.2025

¶15

Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK SHRIVAS SHRIVAS Date: 2025.10.31 11:30:09 +0530

¶16

The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’), for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 48/2025, registered at Police Station Mahila Thana, Bhilai Nagar, District - Durg (CG) for the offence punishable under Sections 137(2), 139(1), 61(2), 3(5) of BNS and

¶17

2

¶18

Section 76 of Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2015.

¶19

The prosecution story in brief, is that the complainant, mother of a nine-month-old child, lodged a report at Mahila Thana, Durg, stating that her sister and sister-in-law deceitfully took away her child at Patna Railway Station on the pretext of fetching water, and thereafter did not return. Despite repeated calls and efforts, the child could not be traced. During investigation, it was revealed that the child had been kidnapped and subsequently sold multiple times. Accused Santosh Pal confessed to selling the child to Pradeep Kumar, who in turn sold him to Mithlesh Prasad @ Dr. Badal, and finally, the child was sold to Gauri Mahato for Rs.7,00,000/-. The child was later recovered from the possession of Gauri Mahato, who stated that he had purchased the child for the purpose of begging as he had no source of income. The investigation also disclosed suspicious money transfers into the account of accused Santosh Pal corresponding to the dates of transaction. The police have registered the case under Sections 137(2), 139(1), 61(2), and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. Hence, the bail application.

¶20

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submit that the main accused in the present case are the close relatives of the complainant, who have been alleged to have taken

¶21

3

¶22

away her nine-month-old child. However, there is no specific foundation or evidence to support the allegation that the child was kidnapped for begging or any information as to how such belief was formed. He also submits that the present applicant has been falsely implicated and arrested solely on the basis of the memorandum of co-accused Santosh Pal, whereas it is a settled principle of law that such a statement under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act cannot be treated as substantive evidence against another accused in absence of any independent corroboration. The child was not recovered from the applicant’s possession but from one Gauri Mahto, and no recovery of the alleged sale amount has been made from the applicant. The essential ingredients of Section 139(1) of the BNS, 2023, dealing with kidnapping for begging, are not made out, as neither the child was kidnapped by the applicant nor on his instance. The applicant, aged about 21 years, has no criminal antecedents, comes from a poor background, and his continued detention would jeopardize his future. No financial transaction linking the applicant with the alleged offence has been found. The applicant is in jail since 13.08.2025 and the trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant.

¶23

On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the charge-sheet has not been filed in the present case before the competent Court. He further

¶24

4

¶25

submits that the applicant allegedly involved in the chain of illegal sale and purchase of the complainant’s nine-month-old child, who was allegedly kidnapped by co-accused Santosh Pal, the investigation further revealed that the applicant, being acquainted with Santosh Pal, participated in or facilitated the subsequent sale of the child for monetary gain, therefore, the applicant is not entitled for grant of bail.

¶26

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

¶27

From perusal of the case diary, it prima facie appears that the applicant allegedly involved in the chain of illegal sale and purchase of the complainant’s nine-month-old child, who was allegedly kidnapped by co-accused Santosh Pal. The investigation further revealed that the applicant, being acquainted with Santosh Pal, participated in or facilitated the subsequent sale of the child for monetary gain. Considering the fact that the prima facie involvement of the applicant found in systematic chain of kidnapping and sale of a nine-month-old infant for exploitation, as such, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant on regular bail.

¶28

Accordingly, the bail application of applicant- Pradeep Kumar, involved in Crime No. 48/2025, registered at Police Station Mahila Thana, Bhilai Nagar, District - Durg (CG) for the offence

¶29

5

¶30

punishable under Sections 137(2), 139(1), 61(2), 3(5) of BNS and Section 76 of Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2015, is rejected .

¶31

Needles to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously.

¶32

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

¶33

Sd/(Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice

¶34

Abhishek

Pradeep Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pradeep 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