SAMUEL DHOKE vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

Court: Chhattisgarh High Court
Case type: MISC. CRIMINAL CASE
Decided on: 25-03-2026

<div> 1 2026:CGHC:14381 2026:CGHC:14381 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 1664 of 2026 Samuel Dhoke S/o Shri Vinod Dhoke Aged About 22 Years R/o House No. 18, Asha Nagar, Distt.- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ... Applicant 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 2 2026:CGHC:14381 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 3 2026:CGHC:14381 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. 4 2026:CGHC:14381 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 5 2026:CGHC:14381 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. </div><table><thead><tr><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th></th><th>Sd/-</th></tr></thead><tbody></tbody></table><div> CHIEF JUSTICE gouri</div>