Allowed

Lekhu Bangde v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC6 Dec 2016MCRC/7408/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment grants regular bail to an applicant falsely implicated in a rape case. Relying on the prosecutrix's statement lacking any allegation against the applicant and the length of detention, the High Court allowed the bail application with a personal bond and surety.

What did the court decide?

Bail allowed; applicant directed to be released on executing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with one surety.

Lekhu Bangde Vs State Of Chhattisgarh — Bail and Remand | Chhattisgarh HC (2016)

¶1

NAFR

¶2

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶3

MCRC No. 7408 of 2016

¶4

Lekhu Bangde S/o Shri Dinesh Bangde Aged About 24 Years R/o Near Lions Vriddhashram, Telibandha, Raipur Police Station Telibandha, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. --- Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Chhattisgarh through The Police Station Civil Lines Raipur, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent

¶7

For the applicant : Mr. N. Naha Roy, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Arvind Shukla, Panel Lawyer

¶8

Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri

¶9

Order on Board

¶10

06.12.2016

¶11

This is second bail application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking grant of regular bail to the applicant in connection with Crime No. 206/2016 registered at P.S. Civil Lines, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G) for the offence punishable under Section 376, 506, 34 IPC. The earlier bail application was dismissed as withdrawn on 28.07.2016 with liberty to repeat the same after examination of the prosecutrix.

¶12

As per the prosecution case, on 04.04.2016 when the prosecutrix was going to Jaipur on the way at about 4.00 p.m., she boarded an auto to go to Raiway Station and the auto driver took her to a hospital saying that he had some work there. Thereafter the driver went to hospital and called two persons one of them was this applicant and they were also allowed to sit in his auto and thereafter the prosecutrix along-with other accused were taken to a Garden at

¶13

Panchsheel Nagar where the other two accused committed forcible sexual intercourse under threat of life.

¶14

Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant has been falsely implicated and the prosecutrix has not attributed any allegation against the present applicant which would be evident from the statement of prosecutrix. He further submits that the applicant is in jail since 17.05.2016, therefore, he may be enlarged on bail.

¶15

Per contra, learned State Counsel opposes the bail.

¶16

Perused the case diary and the statement of the prosecutrix.

¶17

Considering such statement of the prosecutrix wherein no allegation has been attributed to the applicant and the period of detention as the applicant is stated to be in jail since 17.05.2016, I am inclined to allow this bail application.

¶18

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed and the applicant is directed to be released on bail on his executing a personal bond in sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court. He shall also appear before the trial Court as and when directed by the said Court till disposal of the trial.

¶19

C.c. as per rules.

¶20

Sd/-

¶21

GOUTAM BHADURI JUDGE

¶22

R a o

Lekhu Bangde v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lekhu Bangde 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

Gauri Bai Vs Nanda Bai

Draupati Devi Agrawal Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Draupati Devi Agrawal Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Pravin @ Pradeep Shukla Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Chanda Moda Vs Nitesh Agrawal

Rajendra Kumar Vs State Of Chhattisgarh