Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 5523 (CHH)

TUJFAN ALIAS TOOFAN v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

MCRC/676/2025 · 2025-03-10

Shri Arvind Kumar Verma

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 2025:CGHC:11862 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 676 of 2025 1 - Tujfan Alias Toofan S/o Kalamsai, Aged About 22 Years Caste - Panika, R/o Village - Aoni, Police Station And Tehsil - Baikunthpur, District - Korea (C.G.) 2. Ramendra Singh @ Chotu, S/o. Sohan Singh, aged about 20 years, R/o. Village Aoni, Police Station and Tahsil Baikunthpur, District Korea (CG) ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Police Station - Baikunthpur, District - Korea (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicants(s) : Shri Sangeet Kumar Kushwaha, Advocate For Respondent/State : Ms. Laxmeen Kashyap, PL (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board 10/03/2025 The applicants have filed this bail application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrrik Suraksha Sanhita for grant of regular bail as they are in custody in connection with Crime No. 01/2024 registered at police station Baikunthpur, District Koriya (CG) for the offence punishable under Sections 376(d)(a), 315 and 506 IPC and Sections 4 & 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. 2 2. Prosecution case in brief is that on the date of incident ie. 13.04.2024, when the prosecutrix was returning from school to aunt’s house at village Aani, on the way, the present applicants forcefully took her in a ruined house and committed rape on her. It is also alleged that she was threatened not to disclose about the incident to anyone. The prosecutrix became pregnant and when the applicants came to know about her pregnancy, they gave her a tablet strip which she consumed and she fell sick and thereafter she narrated about the incident to her family members. 3. Counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the case He further contended that nine witnesses have been examined and there is contradiction in their statement and have not supported the case of prosecution. He submits that the investigation is complete and the samples sent for DNA report were found negative and therefore the applicants are not the biological father of the child. It is contended that the charge sheet has been filed, they are in jail since 03.08.2024 and the trial is likely to take some time, they are ready and willing to comply with any of the conditions which may be imposed upon them and thus, it is submitted that the application be allowed and the applicants be released on bail. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent/State, on the other hand, has opposed the bail application and submits that the prosecutrix is aged about 14 years 3 months and 17 days. 5. Notice has been duly served upon the father of the victim but none appeared. Ms. Seema Verma, Advocate, present in the Court is requested to assist the Court as Amicus Curae on behalf of the victim. 3 6. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. On due consideration of the rival submissions and further considering the fact that after investigation, it was found from the DNA report that the applicants were not the biological father of the child, and looking to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, and also that they are in jail since 03.08.2024, charge sheet has been filed and that the final disposal of the trial is likely to take sufficiently long time, the present applications deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, their bail applications are allowed. 8. It is directed that in the event of applicants’ executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 10,000/- each with one surety to the satisfaction of the concerned trial court, they 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 SUGUNA DUBEY Digitally signed by SUGUNA DUBEY Date: 2025.03.11 14:19:12 +0530