Dismissed

Sagar Kumar v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC13 Jun 2017MCRC/1762/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed combined bail applications for three police constables arrested for offences under IPC and POCSO. The court held that considering the nature of the offence, the victims' statement, and the applicants' positions as public servants, their release on bail was not in inclination. A薄

What did the court decide?

None granted; bail applications dismissed citing nature of offence, victim statement, and risk of witness tampering by police officers.

Sagar Kumar Vs State Of Chhattisgarh — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Chhattisgarh HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶3

MCRC No. 1762 of 2017

¶4

Sagar Kumar S/o Manoj Kumar Kannojiya, Aged About 29 Years R/o Village Baikunthpur, Camp-2, Chhawani, Police Station Chhawani, Civil And Revenue District Durg Chhattisgarh

¶5

---- Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Jamul, Civil And Revenue District Durg Chhattisgarh

¶8

---- Respondent

¶9

MCRC No. 1761 of 2017

¶10

Sanjay Kumar S/o Dhar Bahadur Soni, Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Katulboard, Durg, Police Station Durg, Civil And Revenue District Durg Chhattisgarh

¶11

---- Applicant

¶12

Versus

¶13

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Jamul, Civil And Revenue District Durg Chhattisgarh

¶14

---Respondent

¶15

And

¶16

MCRC No. 3479 of 2017

¶17

Umesh Kumar Pandey S/o B.N. Pandey, R/o M I G 2, Jamul, Police Station Jamul, District Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh.

¶18

---- Applicant

¶19

Versus

¶20

State Of Chhattisgarh Through S.H.O. Police Station Jamul, District Durg, Chhattisgarh.

¶21

---Respondent

¶22

For applicants - Dr. N.K. Shukla, Sr. Advocate with Shri Goutam Khetrapal and Ms. Ayetri Sen Gupta, Advocate. For Respondent/State – Shri Rahul Tamaskar, PL.

¶23

Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order

¶24

13/06/2017

¶25

All these bail applications are heard and decided together as they

¶26

are arising out of the same crime number.

¶27

The applicants have preferred this applications for grant of bail as

¶28

¶29

they are arrested in connection with Crime No.628/2016 registered in Police Station Jamul Civil and Revenue District Durg (CG) for offence punishable under sections 354, 384, 34 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 8, 11 (4), 11 (5), 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

¶30

As per the prosecution case, on 28/11/2016 prosecutrix who is a minor student had gone to return some amount to her classmate Akansh Tiwari wherein present applicants who are police constables raided and entered the house, thereafter made the girl to took out her clothes and took the photographs and also by black mailing snatched amount of Rs.1500/- from her.

¶31

Dr. N.K. Shukla, Sr. Advocate assisted by Shri Goutam Khetrapal and Ms. Ayetri Sen Gupta would submit that the applicants have not committed any offence. It is submitted that though there is allegation that the victim was assaulted but they refused to get them medically examined which would go to show that false allegations have been attributed. It is submitted that girl was aged about 17 years 9 months and 15 days and further class-9 certificate have been filed which is not authenticated and still to be verified. It is submitted that age of the girl is still in doubt and the applicants are in jail from December 2016 and January, 2017 and are public servants, charge sheet has been filed, statement is already on record, no further investigatio is necessary, therefore the applicants may be released on bail.

¶32

Learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bail and would submit that though the applicants are police constables, however though raid has been stated to have been committed but rojnamcha sanha do not show that any official raid was comitted, therefore of their own act applicants have committed the offence.

¶33

¶34

Perused the statement of the victim and written report made by the victim who is student of engineering which shows that when she went to the room of her classmate to return certain money, the applicants entered there, committed sexual harassment and aggravated sexual assault and also took her photographs and were further black mailed and snatched the amount. It is stated that they were assaulted. Considering the way the offence has been committed by the police officers and statement of the victim/girl, chances of tampering of witnesses cannot be ruled out. Taking into position of the applicants they belong to the police and on them general public at large depends and rely for their security and safety and also considering the statement of the victim, this court is not inclined to release the applicants on bail.

¶35

Accordingly, the bail applications are dismissed.

Sd/-

(Goutam Bhaduri)

Vacation Judge

gouri

Sagar Kumar v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sagar Kumar 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

Umesh Kumar Joshi Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Vijay Shankar Ravi Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Dharmraj Yadav Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Ramesh Yadav Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Vijay Shankar Sahu Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Harihar Yadav Vs State Of Chhattisgarh