The High Court of Chhattisgarh rejected a bail application filed by the applicant charged with sexual offences IPC and POCSO. The court held that due to the prosecutrix's age as a child under POCSO and prima facie evidence, bail is not a fit case.
Bail application filed under Section 439 CrPC is rejected.
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.
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Misc. Criminal Case No.5147 of 2017
---- Applicant
Versus
---- Respondent
For applicant : Shri PP Sahu, Advocate For respondent/State : Shri Lav Sharma, Panel Lawyer
Hon'ble Shri Justice Ram Prasanna Sharma Order On Board
23.11.2017
1 . This is the first bail application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for grant of bail to the applicant who has been arrested on 05.7.2017 in connection with Crime No.152/2017, registered at Police Station Sahaspur Lohara, Distt. Kabirdham (CG) for the offence punishable under Sections 376, 450 & 506 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3 & 4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short 'the POCSO Act').
2 . As per the prosecution story, it is alleged that at about 10.00 pm, the prosecutrix was the sleeping in her house, the accused/appellant entered into the room and closed the door and thereafter committed sexual intercourse with her without her will and consent.
2
3 . Learned counsel for the applicant submits that medical evidence did not support the allegation levelled against the applicant. The prosecutrix did not make any hue and cry at the time of the incident, hence it is a matter of consent.
4 . On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application and submits that there is prima facie case against the applicant, therefore, he is not entitled for bail.
5 . I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.
6 . Date of birth of the prosecutrix is 14.8.2000 and the date of incident is 19.6.2017. On the date of incident the prosecutrix was aged about 16 years and 10 months and was a child as defined under Section 2 of the POCSO Act. Looking to the age of the prosecutrix and that at the time of the commissio of offence she was in her house at about 10.00 pm and considering the prima facie evidence collected by the prosecution against the applicant, it is not a fit case to grant bail to the applicant.
7 . Accordingly, bail application filed under Section 439 CrPC is hereby rejected.
Sd/-
(Ram Prasanna Sharma)
JUDGE
Bini
1 issue framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the applicant charged under Sections 376, 450, 506 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the POCSO Act.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Bhuvneshwar S/o Saahukar Marar
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Sahaspur Lohara, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh
Ram Prasanna Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
