[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Samuel Dhoke vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 25 March, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:14381
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
GOURI MCRC No. 1664 of 2026
MUDALIAR
Samuel Dhoke S/o Shri Vinod Dhoke Aged About 22 Years R/o House No.
Digitally signed by
GOURI MUDALIAR 18, Asha Nagar, Distt.- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Applicant
Date: 2026.03.27
12:49:37 +0530
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Bortalab Distt.- Rajnandgaon.
... Respondent
For Applicant : Shri Pragalbha Sharma, Advocate.
For : Shri Shailendra Sharma, PL.
Respondent/State
Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Order on Board
25/03/2026
1. Learned State counsel submits that the notice of the bail application
has already been served to the complainant i.e. mother of the victim.
Despite of notice being served, the complainant is not present either in
person or through her counsel or through virtual mode from DLSA,
therefore the Court proceeds to hear the matter.
2. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS') for grant of regular
bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime
No.01/2026 registered at Police Station Bortalab, District Rajnandgaon
(C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 61(1), 337, 338, 339,
318(4) of B.N.S & U/s 4, 21, of Protection of Children from Sexual
Offences Act, 2012 & U/s 80 of The Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection
Of Children) Act, 2015 (wrongly mentioned as 64(1) of BNS in the
order sheet).
3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the matter came to light when
the mother of a 15-year-old minor girl (the victim) filed a written
complaint at Chichola Chowki. She stated that in March 2025, her
daughter began vomiting; a local village doctor initially dismissed it as
weakness. However, by September 2025, the victim informed her
family of "movement" in her stomach. A sonography confirmed she was
eight months pregnant. The victim revealed that a boy from her village,
Aditya Verma, with whom she had studied from Class 6 to Class 9, had
sent her messages expressing his liking for her. She alleged that on
February 12, 2025, during his sister's wedding, Aditya took her to his
new house and engaged in sexual intercourse with her against her will.
According to the prosecution, a criminal conspiracy was hatched to
conceal the birth and "sell" or illegally transfer the child. The victim's
aunt and uncle allegedly took her to Bhanupratappur, Kanker, to hide
the pregnancy from the village, telling others she was staying at her
maternal aunt's house. The victim was admitted to Krishna Hospital,
Rajnandgaon, where she delivered a baby boy. It is alleged that Ravi
Kumar Barve and his wife, Mona Barve (acquaintances of the victim),
took the newborn to Dr. Kumud Mohabey Memorial Hospital. They
allegedly paid a sum of money to hospital staff and management to
create a false record stating that Mona Barve had given birth to the
child via Cesarean section. The prosecution claims that Samuel Dhoke
(Applicant), along with other staff members like Gesu Dewangan and
Deepika Yadav, were complicit in this conspiracy. They allegedly
facilitated the creation of forged documents and a false birth certificate
registered with the Municipal Corporation to legitimize the illegal
possession of the child by the Barve couple. Hence the FIR.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent
and has been falsely implicated, as there is no evidence on record to
establish his involvement in the alleged offence. It is submitted that the
applicant is merely working as an Accountant, and his duties are
limited to financial matters, having no connection with patient records,
birth registration, or any medical/administrative process concerning
delivery cases. It is further submitted that the premature child was
brought to Kumud Mohabey Hospital by co-accused Dr. Vijay
Nagvanshi, who is professionally associated with both hospitals, and
the staff, including the applicant, acted in good faith relying upon his
representation. The child was admitted on the basis of a duly sworn
affidavit submitted by Ravi Barve and Mona Barve, and the applicant
had neither reason nor authority to doubt the same. He would submit
that the alleged offence and delivery took place at Krishna Hospital,
and the applicant had no knowledge that the child was born to a minor
or that any illegality was involved. The applicant has not committed any
act with criminal intent and merely discharged his routine duties based
on documents placed before him. He would submit that the charge
sheet has been filed in this case, the applicant is in jail since
13/01/2026 and conclusion of trial will take some time, therefore, he
prays for grant of bail to the applicant.
5. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application
and he would submit that charge sheet has been filed in this case
before the competent court.
6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the
case diary.
7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case,
submission of learned counsel for the parties, materials available on
record, nature of allegation levelled against the applicant who happens
to be an accountant, period of detention of the applicant since
13/01/2026, charge sheet has been filed and also considering the fact
that trial is likely to take some time for its conclusion, therefore this
Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail
in this case.
8. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed and it is directed that the
Applicant- Samuel Dhoke, involved in Crime No.01/2026 registered at
Police Station Bortalab, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) for the offence
punishable under Sections 61(1), 337, 338, 339, 318(4) of B.N.S & U/s
4, 21, of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 & U/s
80 of The Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection Of Children) Act, 2015,
be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two
sureties in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with
the following conditions:-
(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he
shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence
when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this
condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of
liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.
(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on
each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case
of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may
proceed against him under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita.
(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial
and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section
84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the
court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court
shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law,
under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial
court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of
charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 351 of
BNSS. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant
is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for
the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and
proceed against him in accordance with law.
9. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court
for necessary information and compliance.
Sd/-
(Ramesh Sinha)
CHIEF JUSTICE
gouri
