Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 19610 (CHH)

BHUSHAN BARMAN v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

MCRC/3635/2025 · 2025-06-30

Shri Arvind Kumar Verma

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2025:CGHC:29654 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 3635 of 2025 1 - Bhushan Barman S/o Maluva Barman Aged About 21 Years R/o Village - Bhadrali, P.S. Mungeli District Mungeli Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, City Kotwali District - Mungeli Chhattisgarh ---Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Ayush Lall, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Rishabh Bisen, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 01/072025 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the B.N.S.S. for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 372/2024 registered at Police Station City Kotwali, District Mungeli (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 64, 351(2), 138, 3(5) of the B.N.S. and 4, 6 and 17 of POCSO. 2. Today, victim along with her brother were present before this Court through DLSA Mugeli and they raised objection in allowing the bail application of the applicant. 3. The allegation against the present applicant as per the prosecution case is that, on 30.09.2024, the prosecutrix has lodged a report against the 2 present applicant Bhushan Barman and other co-accused Vikki Ogre with an allegation that on the evening of 27.09.2024 she had gone to her field to do the weeding work, thereafter at around 3-4 pm, Vikki Ogre and the present applicant arrived and the present applicant Bhushan Barman forcefully pressed her mouth and took her to a nearby sugarcane field and forcibly had physical relation with her and threatened to kill her if she tell this to anyone else. Thereafter Bhushan received a call on his phone and they both fled away. On basis of the above facts, an F.I.R. in this regard was lodged and the present applicant has been arrested on 01.10.2024. 4. Learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the State and learned counsel for respondent/Objector however opposed the bail application. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly taking into consideration the gravity of offence committed by the applicant and also considering the statement of the prosecutrix, this Court finds it appropriate to reject the instant application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail, at this stage. 7. Office is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court for necessary information. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Jyoti