Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 17953 (CHH)

SUKHDAS KOSALE v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

MCRC/4384/2025 · 2025-07-01

Shri Arvind Kumar Verma

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2025:CGHC:29879 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRC No. 4384 of 2025 Sukhdas Kosale S/o Harikishan Kosare Aged About 24 Years R/o Ward No. 05, Near Govt. Primary School, Nawapara Pandariya, P.S. Pandariya District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station- Pandariya District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent For Applicant : Ms. Laxmin Tondey, Advocate. For State : Mr. Rishab Bisen, PL. Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order On Board 02/07/2025 1. Heard. 2. This is the second bail application filed under Section 483 of the BNS for grant of regular bail to the applicant, who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 307/2024 registered at Police Station- Pandariya District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh, for the offence punishable under Sections 137(2), 87, 64(2)(M), 65(1), 376(1) of BNS and Section 4(2), 6 of the POCSO Act. 3. The applicant's first bail application was dismissed on merits by order of this Court dated 20.02.2025 passed in M.Cr.C. No.461/2025. 2 4. Case of prosecution, in brief, is that complainant (parents of victim) lodged missing report to the concerned Police Station, based upon which, FIR was registered initially against unknown persons. During course of investigation, prosecutrix was recovered and her statement was recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C, based upon which, applicant was arrested in aforementioned crime/offence. 5. Pursuant to order of this Court, victim is appeared before this Court through virtual mode from the concerned DLSA. She submits that she is having no objection in granting bail to the applicant/accused. 4. Considering facts of the case, nature of offence, submission of learned counsel for the respective parties, particularly the submission of State Counsel that the applicant has abducted the minor victim (aged about 15-16 years) and took her to Hyderabad, thereafter, committed forceful sexual intercourse with her on many occasion, further considering the evidence of PW-2 & P-1 (victim and her father), I do not find any new good ground or any change in the circumstances of the case to entertain this second bail application. 5. Accordingly, the second bail application is hereby rejected. Certified copy, as per rules. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge J.