Neelam Khunte vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Both the anticipatory bail applications are decided by this common order, as they are arising out of the same crime number.

Both applications under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicants apprehending their arrest in connection with

Crime No. 79/2021 registered at Police Station Sarkanda, District Bilaspur, C.G. for the offence punishable under Section 354, 376 (x), 342, 294,

323/34 of I.P.C.

As per the prosecution case, one Neeta Singh made a written complaint on 18.01.2021 stating that she was one of the inmate at Ujjawala home and

the the present applicants Neelam Khunte and Aarti Verma used to torture and assault her and make her and other inmates sit naked if they objected

to any activity. It is further alleged that during the investigation the statement of Durga Patel and Neeta Singh were recorded and it was stated that

they were subjected to sexual assault and further it was stated that in the Ujjawala Home certain psychotropic substances were mixed in the food and

thereafter taking the meal they used to feel sleepy and subsequently they were subjected to unnatural activities or sexual assault, as after waking up in

the morning they could feel total body ache. It is further submitted that one of the inmate Durga Patel has further contended that Jitrendra Mourya has

committed rape with her and thereby the offence has been committed.

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that initially the husband of Neeta Singh abused and forcefully took away 3 girls from Ujjalawa Home

therefore a report was made by Jitendra Mourya who run the Ujjalawa Home and case was registered under Section 456 and 294 of the IPC.

Thereafter, the present report was made as an counter blast and no evidence exist against the present applicants and they have discharged their duty

with due diligence and false allegations have been made against them, therefore the applicants may be given the benefit of anticipatory bail.

Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and read out the statement of Neetu Singh and Durga Patel.

Learned counsel for the objector submits that they have no objection to the anticipatory bail.

Considering the statement of Neetu Singh and Durga Patel, the present applicants are in-charge and managing the affairs of the Ujjalawa house.

Serious allegations have been attributed including inhuman torture, sexual assault and intoxication in the food. It appears that the applicants are trying

to influence the witness and considering the seriousness of allegations, when there are number of victims no objection from one of the complainants,

the applicants cannot be given benefit, considering the over all aspects, I am not inclined to extend the benefit of anticipatory bail to the applicants.

Accordingly, both the anticipatory bail applications are dismissed.