Chattisgarh High Court
Komal Ahirwar vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 15 April, 2025
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2025:CGHC:17140-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 1623 of 2024
Komal Ahirwar S/o Aoumeda Ahirwar Aged About 32 Years R/o Village-
Udaipur, P.S.- Bijawar, District- Chatarpur, M.P.
... Appellant(s)
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S.- Tapkara, District- Jashpur, C.G.
(District Name Wrongly Mention In Impugend Order)
... Respondent(s)
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Akhat Kumar Yadav, Advocate
For Respondent/State : Mr. Malay Jain, Panel Lawyer
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge
Order on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
15/04/2025
Proceedings of this matter have been taken through video
conferencing.
Heard Mr. Akhat Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant
and Mr. Malay Jain, learned Panel Lawyer for the State and perused the
record.
1. This criminal appeal has been filed under Section 21(4) of the
National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (in short 'N.I.A. Act').
2. Vide order dated 24.07.2024 appellants' application under Section
439 of the Cr.P.C. has been rejected by the learned Special Judge,
(NIA), Bilaspur (C.G.) for grant of regular bail in connection with Crime
No.39/2024 registered at Police Station Tapkara, District Jashpur (C.G.)
for offence punishable under Sections 363, 365, 366 (a), 368, 120(B)
and 370/34 of IPC.
3. As per prosecution story, 0n 18.04.2024, the complainant namely
Sanpet Yadav lodged FIR before the police station Takara alleging that
the appellant had abducted her two grand daughter and one grandson
from his home. On the basis of the said report, Crime No. 39/2024 was
registered against the applicant and other co-accused persons for the
offence punishable under Sections 363, 365, 366 (a), 368, 120(B) and
370/34 of IPC. The appellant is in Jail since 22.04.2024.
4. It has been argued by learned counsel for the appellant that the
appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present
case. He would further submit that the appellant has been roped in the
present case due to enmity and that the appellant has not committed
any offence as alleged against him. He submits that he has one
previous criminal antecedent against him and vide judgment dated
11.07.2023, he has been acquitted. He submits that the children were
in custody of co-accused person namely Nilu @ Nirmala Nayak and
Bimla Yadav who are friends and they have abducted the children. It is
further stated that he is languishing in jail for the last one year and out of
20 witnesses only 4 witnesses have been examined, therefore the
appellant may be released on bail. He submits that co-accused Bimla
took the children to Nilu @ Nirmala Pathak for engaging them in work.
Lastly, he submits that the charge sheet has been filed and only four
witnesses have been examined therefore, at this stage, the appellant
may be granted bail.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would oppose
this criminal appeal and submit that there is clear evidence regarding
the involvement of the present appellant in the alleged offence,
therefore, he is not entitled for grant of bail and consequently, the
present appeal deserves to be dismissed.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
records.
7. It is stated by the counsel for the appellant that the wife of the
appellant is also languishing in jail and on a pointed query being made
from the counsel for the appellant as to whether any bail application has
been filed on behalf of the wife of the appellant namely, Bimla, who is
the co-accused, he has stated that her case is not good hence, the bail
application has not been filed on her behalf.
8. Considering the overall aspects of the matter and the allegations
levelled against him as well as the seriousness of the offence and the
trial is in progress and 04 prosecution witnesses have been examined,
we are not inclined to allow the instant criminal appeal and grant bail to
the appellant. Accordingly, it is dismissed at this stage.
9. However, considering the fact that the appellant is in jail since
22.04.2024, the concerned trial Court is directed to expedite the trial
and conclude the same in accordance with law within a period of three
months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if there is no
legal impediment. The learned counsel for the parties are directed to file
a certified copy of this order before the trial Court for necessary
information and its compliance.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
SUGUNA DUBEY
DUBEY Date:
2025.04.19
14:51:48 +0530
