High CourtsSingle Bench(2025) 02 CHH CK 0801

Sunil Kumar Netam vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh High Court · Decided on 24 February 2025

HON’BLE JUDGES
Arvind Kumar Verma, J
RESULT
Rejected
CASE NUMBER
MCRC No. 703 Of 2025

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

9 paragraphs · 337 words

Arvind Kumar Verma, J

1.

This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Shuraksha Sanhita for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested on 07/11/2024 in connection with Crime No. 76/2024, registered at Police Station Khadgaon, District Mohla-Manpur-Ambagarh Chauki, C.G. for the offence punishable under Sections 65, 351 (3) of the B.N.S. and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

2.

The case of the prosecution in brief is that the prosecutrix lodged a report in the police station alleging therein that on 03/11/2024 at about 9.30 PM while she went to answer the nature’s call, at that time, the present applicant came there and grabbed the hands of the prosecutrix and forcibly took her to the nearby and committed forceful sexual intercourse with her. The police on the basis of the aforesaid report started investigation and during investigation the applicant was arrested.

3.

Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant has not committed any offence and he has been falsely implicated. He would next contend that the medical examination of the prosecutrix would show that there was no injury on the private part as well as on the entire body of the prosecutrix. He would lastly contend that the applicant is in jail since 07/11/2024, therefore, he may be enlarged on bail.

4.

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

5.

The prosecutrix appeared through video conferencing from DLSA, Rajnandgaon and she objected to grant of bail to the applicant.

6.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents.

7.

Considering the entire facts & circumstances of the case, the submission of the learned counsel for the respective parties and the objection raised by the prosecutrix and specially considering the nature of offence and the manner in which it has been committed, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail.

8.

Accordingly, the bail application is rejected.