Allowed

Surendra Kumar Pradhan v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC11 Jun 2020MCRC/1863/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge of Chhattisgarh High Court allowed bail application of an accused faced with Section 376(2)(n) IPC/SC/ST Act charges, directing release on personal bond subject to execution within four weeks if not already released under a specific Supreme Court order on COVID prison contagion.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail via personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with one local surety, or existing bail bond under Supreme Court's COVID prison directive.

Surendra Kumar Pradhan Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Bail and Remand | Chhattisgarh HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

MCRC No. 1863 of 2020

¶5

Surendra Kumar Pradhan S/o Late Kanhai Pradhan, Aged About 24 Years R/o Dorna, Thana- Lundra, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh.

¶6

---- Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Chhattisgarh, Through : Police Station- AJK Ambikapur, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh.

¶9

---- Respondent

¶10

For Applicant : Mr. Rakesh Pandey, Adv. For Respondent/State : Mr. Sameer Sharma, Dy. G.A.

¶11

Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Order on Board

¶12

11/06/2020

¶13

The accused/applicant has moved this first bail application under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code for releasing him on regular bail during trial in connection with Crime No. 28/2020 registered at Police Station AJK Ambikapur, DistrictSurguja (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 376 (2)(n) of the IPC 3 (2-5) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

¶14

The prosecution story in brief is that, prosecutrix lodged a written complaint that in the month of March 2016 the present applicant came to her rented house and on pretext of marriage committed sexual intercourse with her and since then he kept on making physical relation with her. Thereafter, on 15.11.2019 the applicant had left the prosecutrix and fled away with another girl. Based on this offence has been registered against the present applicant.

¶15

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the crime in question. He further submits that the prosecutrix was residing with the applicant in live-in-relationship with her own will and consent, the applicant has never promised her to get married with her. He next submits that the applicant is in jail

¶16

¶17

since 16.02.2020, there is no likelihood of his case being decided in near future, therefore, the present applicant may be released on bail.

¶18

On the other hand, counsel for the State opposes the bail application and submits that the allegation against the applicant is of serious in nature, the applicant made false promise of marriage and committed sexual intercourse continuously with the prosecutrix, therefore, no case is made out for grant of bail.

¶19

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.

¶20

Taking into consideration the nature and gravity of the offence, facts and circumstances of the case, detention period of applicant and further considering that the applicant is in jail since 16.02.2020, and the trial is likely to take some time for its final disposal, this Court is of the view that it is a fit case to release the applicant on bail. Accordingly, the application is allowed.

¶21

Accused/applicant is directed to be released on bail on his executing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one local surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court. He is directed to appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to him by the said Court.

¶22

It is made clear that if the applicant has already been released on bail pursuant to the bail bond already furnished in view of the order passed by the High Power Committee constituted in compliance of the order of the Supreme Court of India dated 23.03.2020 in the matter of In Re : Contagion of COVID 19 Virus in Prisons (Suo Moto Writ Petition (c) No. 1/2020), he need not furnish bail bond afresh and the bail bond already furnished shall be deemed to be the bail bond furnished in compliance of the order of this Court, but if he has not furnished the bail bond earlier, then he will be required to furnish bail bond within four weeks from today.

¶23

Sd/(Rajani Dubey) Judge

¶24

H.L. Sahu

Surendra Kumar Pradhan v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surendra Kumar Pradhan 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

Gokul Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Tularam & Anr. Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Kanhaiya Sai @ Kondu (Wrongly Written in the Order Sheet Which May Be Read as Kanhaiya Sahu) Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Gopal & Anr. Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Supriyo Bhattacharya Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ramesh Jaiswal & Anr. Vs State of Chhattisgarh