Allowed

Sanjay Yadav v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC12 Jul 2016MCRC/3510/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh granted regular bail to the applicant convicted of abduction and sexual offences. The Court observed that the applicant was not present during the alleged incident and the victim was recovered from a railway station, making the applicant a fit case for bail.

What did the court decide?

Granted regular bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with one surety in like sum.

Sanjay Yadav Vs State Of Chhattisgarh — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Chhattisgarh HC (2016)

¶1

Page No.1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

M.CR.C. No. 3510 of 2016

¶5

Sanjay Yadav, age about 22 years, S/o. Late Shri Jawahar Lal Yadav, R/o. Aazad Nagar, Birgaon, P.S. - Urla, Raipur, District (Revenue & Civil) – Raipur (C.G.)

¶6

----Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Chhattisgarh, Through : Station House Officer, Police Station – Khamtarie, District- Raipur (C.G.)

¶9

---- Respondent

¶10

For Applicant : Mr. Yogesh Pandey, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Sumit Jhanwar, Panel Lawyer

¶11

Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri

¶12

Order On Board

¶13

12/07/2016

¶14

This is the first bail application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No.124/2016, registered at Police Station – Khamtarie, District – Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 363, 376 of Indian Penal Code and Section 4, 5 (B) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

¶15

Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 19.03.2016, it is alleged that applicant took away the prosecutrix, who is the minor girl from the lawful guardianship of her parents and thereafter committed sexual intercourse and she was found on 20.03.2016. Thereby the offence has been committed.

¶16

Page No.2

¶17

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that reading of the FIR would how that from 19.03.2016 till her recovery on 20.03.2016, the applicant was not at all in the picture and after recovery of the girl was made from railway station not from the possession of the applicant, statement was made that prior to date, the applicant has committed sexual intercourse. It is further submitted that chargesheet in this case has been filed and the applicant is in jail since 24.03.2016, therefore, the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶18

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application.

¶19

I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶20

Perused the case diary and the statement. Perusal of the statement of the girl would show that on 19.03.2016 she went to the house of her friend and on 20.03.2016, she roam around and on 20.03.2016, she was recovered at the railway station, wherein the presence of the present applicant has not been shown. The statement further shows that prior to 19.03.2016, the applicant has committed forceful intercourse. Considering such statement and the fact that on the date of incident, the applicant was not in the scene, this Court is of the opinion that present is a fit case, in which, the applicant should be enlarged on regular bail.

¶21

Accordingly, the bail application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. is allowed.

¶22

Page No.3

¶23

It is directed that applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court, for his appearance as and when directed.

¶24

Certified copy as per rules.

¶25

Sd/(Goutam Bhaduri) Judge

¶26

Balram

Sanjay Yadav v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Yadav v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Parmanand Nishad Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Vinod Ekka @ Petara Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Rajkumar Dheevar Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Ku. Renu Dubey Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Ajay Kumar Kashyap Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Tilochan Kumar Jangade Vs State Of Chhattisgarh