Allowed

Kumari Rajmati Ekka v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC3 Nov 2020MCRC/5548/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a bail application filed by an accused awaiting childbirth, noting that her role involved enticing victims for their husband to carry out. Considering her delivery due date and medical necessity, the court granted regular bail on existing bonds.

What did the court decide?

Release of the applicant on bail on the same bonds and sureties produced for interim bail.

Kumari Rajmati Ekka Vs State of… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Chhattisgarh HC (2020)

¶1

NAFR

¶2

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶3

MCRC No. 5548 of 2020

¶4

Kumari Rajmati Ekka D/o Late Bandhan Ekka, Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Sakarliya P.S. And Tahsil Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh, Civil And Revenue District Raigarh Chhattisgarh

¶5

---- Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Officer-In-Charge Police Chowki Kotba, PS Bagbahar, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh.

¶8

---- Respondent

¶9

For Applicant Mr. Ashutosh Mishra, Advocate For Respondent /State Mr. Vikram Sharma, Dy. Govt. Advocate

¶10

(Proceedings through Video Conferencing)

¶11

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra

¶12

Order On Board

¶13

3/11/2020

¶14

Heard.

¶15

At the very outset, learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the default as pointed out by the office has already been removed.

¶16

The applicant has preferred this first bail application under Section 439 of CrPC, as he is arrested in connection with Crime No.12/2020, registered at Police Chowki Kotba, PS Bagbahar, District Jashpur (CG), for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 370 & 370(4) of the Indian Penal Code.

¶17

Allegation against the accused persons is that they kidnapped and trafficked three victims, aged about 18 years for taking them to New Delhi and engaging them for doing household works.

¶18

Learned counsel for the State would read 164 Cr.P.C. statement of the victims.

¶19

It appears role of this applicant is only to the extent of enticing or requesting the victims to accompany her husband for going to New Delhi. Thereafter, the victims were taken to New Delhi by the husband of the applicant and at New Delhi they were handed over to co-accused Pradeep Tigga.

¶20

This applicant has been allowed interim bail vide order dated 268-2020, which is operative till 22-11-2020. Interim bail has been allowed for the reason that the applicant is expecting, her due date of delivery being 14-11-2020. Obviously after delivery takes place the applicant would need post maternity care for herself and for the newly born child, therefore, considering the nature of allegation as well as applicant's delivery and post delivery/maternity complications, I am of the opinion that present is a fit case to release the applicant on regular bail.

¶21

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed and the applicant is directed to be released on bail on same bail bonds and surety which she has produced pursuant to the interim bail order dated 26-8-2020. She is directed to appear before the trial Court on each and very date given by the said Court.

¶22

Certified copy as per rules.

¶23

Sd/-

¶24

Gowri

¶25

(Prashant Kumar Mishra) Judge

Kumari Rajmati Ekka v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kumari Rajmati Ekka 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

Sunil Kumar Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Lilesh Kumar Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Yushuf Ansari Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Roshan Lal Chouhan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Nirakar @ Salom @ Virat @ Paster Tandi Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Bajrang and Another Vs State of Chhattisgarh