The court dismissed a bail cancellation petition, upholding an earlier order that granted bail to the second opposite party after initial rejection on POCSO grounds was revised based on facts showing no graver offense and free mixing.
Petition for cancellation of bail dismissed; bail order to opposite party no.2 upheld.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
25.04.2023 Sl. No.86 akd
C. R. M. 11773 of 2018
In Re : An application for cancellation of bail under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 19.12.2018 :
A N D
In Re : Chanchal Sharma
…… Petitioner
Earlier bail prayer of opposite party no.2 was rejected on the ground that offence under POCSO Act would be attracted to the facts of the case. Subsequently, it came to light that graver offences are not
attracted. There was free mixing between the parties.
Under such circumstances, opposite party no.2 was enlarged
on bail.
We find no reason to interfere with the order granting bail to opposite party no.2.
With the aforesaid observations, CRM 11773 of 2018 is disposed of.
(Ajay Kumar Gupta, J.)
(Joymalya Bagchi, J.)
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the high court should interfere with the bail order granted to the second opposite party after initially rejecting bail on POCSO grounds.
Whether the facts show that POCSO is attracted to the case or if graver offenses are involved.
Whether the circumstances of free mixing between parties warrant granting bail.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Chanchal Sharma
Ajay Kumar Gupta
Joymalya Bagchi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
