Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 5258 (CHH)

KOMAL PRASAD RATHIYA v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

MCRC/736/2025 · 2025-02-10

Shri Arvind Kumar Verma

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2025:CGHC:7408 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 736 of 2025 1 - Komal Prasad Rathiya S/o Shri Late Phir Singh Rathiya, Aged About-19 Years, R/o Village- Aidukala, P.S. Chhal, Distt. Raigarh, Civil And Revenue Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station- Punjipathra, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant : Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Advocate For Respondent/State : Shri Karan Kumar Bahrani, PL (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board 10/02/2025 The applicant has filed this bail application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrrik Suraksha Sanhita for grant of regular bail as he is in custody in connection with Crime No. 124/2023 registered at police station Punjipatra, District Raigarh (CG) for the offence punishable under Sections 376 and 417 of IPC and Sections 4 & 6 of the SUGUNA DUBEY Digitally signed by SUGUNA DUBEY Date: 2025.02.13 12:04:45 +0530 2 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. 2. Prosecution case in brief is that report was lodged by the prosecutrix alleging that she and the applicant were studying in the same school and became friends. It is further case of prosecution that there was love affair between them and on the pretext of marriage, committed sexual intercourse with her and she became pregnant of 7-8 months. 4. Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. He submits that the prosecutrix was aged about 18 years and was having love affair with the applicant. He submits that the applicant is in jail since 14.05.2023, the charge sheet has been filed and the trial is likely to take some time, he is ready and willing to comply with any of the conditions which may be imposed upon him and thus, it is submitted that the application be allowed and the applicant be released on bail. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent/State, on the other hand, has opposed the bail application and submits that as per the date of birth certificate, the prosecutrix was aged about 16 years and 10 months at the time of incident and she was carrying pregnancy of 8 months. 6. Victim and her mother appeared through the concerned DLSA and have raised objection. 7. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. On due consideration of the rival submissions and the fact that the applicant is in jail since 14.05.2023, the charge sheet has been filed and that the final disposal of the trial is likely to take sufficiently long 3 time, the present application deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, his bail application is allowed. 9. It is directed that in the event of applicant executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety to the satisfaction of the concerned trial court, he shall be released on bail on the following conditions: i) He shall appear before the trial court regularly on each and every date, unless exempted from appearance. ii) He shall not make any attempt to tamper with the prosecution witnesses. Iii) the applicant is directed not to communicate/contact in any manner with the prosecutrix, her family members and the witnesses cited in the charge sheet any other person concerned or attempt to ask for any favour in the trial directly or indirectly. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge