Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Chattisgarh High Court

Sameer Dalit Murar vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 23 June, 2025

                                                  1

                                      Digitally
                                      signed by
                                      BHOLA
                             BHOLA NATH
                             NATH   KHATAI
                             KHATAI Date:
                                    2025.06.24
                                      17:27:29
                                      +0530




                                                          2025:CGHC:27013
                                                                        NAFR

         HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

                         MCRC No. 3355 of 2025

Sameer Dalit Murar S/o Shri Dalit Murar Aged About 29 Years R/o Village-
Goji Ward No. 01, Police Station - Sevagram, District- Vardha
(Maharashtra)
                                                                    ... Applicant
                                      versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, Distt.- Janjgir -Champa
(C.G.)
                                                                 ... Respondent

For Applicant : Mr. Vivek Kumar Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent : Ms. Prabha Sharma, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order On Board 23.06.2025

1. The victim along with her father appeared before this Court today and made their no objection in granting bail to the applicant.

2. Heard the application filed u/s 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. This is the first bail application for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No.40/2024 registered at Police Station Birra, District Janjgir- Champa (CG) for the offence punishable under Sections 64(2)(M) of BNS and Sections 4 & 12 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

2

3. As per the prosecution case, the applicant knowing fully well that the victim was a minor, forcibly committed sexual intercourse with her several times on the pretext of marriage. On report being made in this regard, the applicant was arrested on 22.04.2025.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He submits that the applicant and the victim were living together as husband and wife. The victim and her father have also given their no objection in granting bail to the applicant. He further submits that the applicant is in jail since 22.04.2025 and there is no likelihood of the trial to be concluded at the earliest, therefore, the applicant may be released on bail.

5. State counsel, on the other hand, opposing the bail application submits that trial has not commenced and considering the nature of offence, the applicant does not deserve to be released on bail.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.

7. Taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the nature and gravity of offence, the material collected and available on record against the applicant and the fact that the trial has not commenced and the victim has not been examined, this Court is not inclined to release the applicant on bail at this stage.

8. Accordingly, the present bail application is rejected.

9. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information.

Sd/-

(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) JUDGE Khatai