Anuj Dhurve Vs State of Chhattisgarh

This is Second bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 for grant of regular bail to applicants, who have been arrested in connection with Crime No.17/2025, registered at PS -Taregaon Jungle, District- Kabirdham (C.G), for commission of offence punishable under Sections 74, 78, 115(2), 126(2), 296, 351(3) & 3(5) of BNS and Section 8 of the POCSO Act.

¶17

2

¶18

First bail application of the applicants was dismissed for want of prosecution.

¶19

Case of prosecution, in brief, is that on 19.07.2025 minor victim/prosecutrix (aged about 17 years & 05 months) along-with her brother was coming back from village -Basni; on the way the applicants have followed them and, thereafter, stopped them on the main road at Bangaura Beech Jungle and abused the victim's brother and also threatened to kill him. Applicants had beaten the victim's brother with hands and fists and also tried to outrage the modesty of minor victim by holding her hands and arms. Based on report lodged by minor victim/prosecutrix on 20.07.2025, First Information Report (FIR) was registered against the applicants and they have been arrested in the alleged crime/offence.

¶20

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that applicants have been falsely implicated in this case, they have not committed any offence as alleged against him. In the FIR and written report/complaint made by victim, name of the applicants is mentioned, however, in the statement of victim recorded under Section 183 of BNSS, victim herself states that she does not know the applicants, hence, the offence under which applicants are charged is prima facie not proved. No Test Identification Parade (TIP) has been conducted in the present case, despite the fact that the prosecutrix herself in her statement has categorically stated that she does not know the applicants/accused persons. Medical examination report of the prosecutrix and brother of prosecutrix

¶21

3

¶22

does not support the allegation of sexual assault and hurt as mentioned in the FIR. Hence, the entire prosecution story appears to be concocted and improbable, as there is no independent witness or corroborative evidence linking the applicants with the alleged offence/crime. Prosecution has failed to prove the age of the prosecutrix through any authentic documentary or medical evidence. There is no any other criminal antecedent against the applicants. Applicants are in jail since 21.07.2025, conclusion of trial may take some time, hence, applicants may be released on bail.

¶23

Per contra, learned State Counsel opposing the bail application of the applicants.

¶24

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶25

Pursuant to order of this Court, on 12.01.2026 victim was appeared before this Court by virtual mode from the concerned DLSA and raised objection in granting bail to the applicants.

¶26

Considering facts of the case, nature of allegations, submissions of learned counsel for the parties, particularly the fact that in FIR and report made by victim name of the applicants is mentioned, however, in statement of victim recorded under Section 183 of BNSS, she herself states that she does not know the applicants, there is no any other criminal antecedent against the applicants, further considering that there is compromise between applicant No.2 and victim and there is substantial change in circumstances, charge-sheet has already been filed, detention period of applicants, conclusion of trial may take some time, without commenting

¶27

4

¶28

anything on merits of the case, I am inclined to allow this bail application.

¶29

Accordingly, this second bail application of applicants is allowed. It is directed that applicants shall be released on regular bail, on their furnishing a bail bond in sum of Rs.10,000/- each with one surety in like sum to satisfaction of concerned Court on the conditions that-

¶30

a) Applicants shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such fact to the Court. b) Applicants shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial, and

¶31

c) Applicants shall appear before trial Court on each and every date given to them by the said Court till disposal of the trial.

¶32

Certified copy as per rules.

¶33

Sd/(Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge

¶34

J/-

Anuj Dhurve v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anuj Dhurve 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

Ishwar Lal Noniya Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Nakul Sharma Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Rupa Pangi Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Harilal Bareth Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ayush Sinha @ Deep Sinha Vs State of C.G.

Ghi Vs State of Chhattisgarh