Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 45765 (CHH)

SHAHID KHAN @ MONU v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

MCRC/9093/2024 · 2025-02-21

Shri Arvind Kumar Verma

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2025:CGHC:9263 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRC No. 9093 of 2024 • Shahid Khan @ Monu S/o Kaju Khan Aged About 20 Years R/o Jogidipa Indira Nagar, Police Station Chakradhar Nagar, Raigarh, District Raigarh, C.G ... Applicant(s) versus • State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Chakradhar Nagar, Raigarh, District Raigarh, C.G. --- Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Ashish Gupta, Advocate For Respondent/State : Ms. Karan Bahrani, PL. Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 21/02/2025 1. This is first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 for grant of regular bail to applicant, who has been arrested in connection with Crime No.531/2024, registered at PS - Chakradhar Nagar, Raigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh, for commission of offence punishable under Sections 64(2)(m), 65(1), 351(2), 115/2 of BNS and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. 2. Case of prosecution, in brief, is that present applicant has committed forceful sexual intercourse with the victim on many occasion. Based upon report, FIR was registered against the applicant and he has been arrested. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in this case, he has not committed any offence as alleged 2 against him. There is delay in lodging of FIR, which has not been explained properly by the prosecution. There was love affair between the applicant and victim, relationship was developed between them with their own consent. Though there is allegation of forceful sexual intercourse, but in the MLC, the Doctor has not found any sing or injuries (external or internal) on the body of victim. There is no any other criminal antecedent against the applicant. Applicant is in jail since 23.11.2024, conclusion of trial may take some time, hence, applicant may be released on bail. 4. Per contra, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application of the applicant. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. Victim alongwith her guardian is appeared before this Court through virtual mode from the concerned DLSA and raised no objecting in granting bail to the applicant. 7. Considering facts of the case, nature of allegations, submission of learned counsel for the applicant that there was love affair between the applicant and victim, relationship was established with the consent of the victim, in MLC the Doctor has not found any sing or injuries (external or internal) on the body of victim, further the fact that there is delay in lodging of FIR which has not been explained properly by the prosecution, further considering that there is no any other criminal antecedent against the applicant, charge-sheet has already been filed, detention period of applicant, conclusion of trial may take some time, without commenting anything on merits of the case, I am inclined to allow this bail application. 8. Accordingly, bail application is allowed. It is directed that applicant shall be released on regular bail, on his furnishing a bail bond in sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety in like sum to satisfaction of concerned Court on the conditions that- 3 a) Applicant 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 him from disclosing such fact to the Court. b) Applicant shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial, and c) Applicant shall appear before trial Court on each and every date given to him by the said Court till disposal of the trial. Certified copy as per rules. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge J.