Allowed

Hemlal Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC6 Nov 2020MCRC/6861/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge order allowing regular bail to an applicant arrested for kidnapping, abducting, and sexually assaulting a minor. The court considered the prosecutrix's statement regarding consent and her lack of objection to bail, granting relief on furnishing a personal bond.

What did the court decide?

Regular bail granted subject to the furnishing of a personal bond of Rs. 25,000/ with one surety in like sum for appearance before the trial court.

Hemlal Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Chhattisgarh HC (2020)

¶1

Page 1 of 3

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

MCRC No. 6861 of 2020

¶5

Hemlal Sahu, S/o Chheduram Sahu, Aged About 33 Years, Caste- Teli, Resident of Village Temari, Police Station- Komakhan, Tahsil Komakhan, District- Mahasamund (C.G.)

¶6

--- Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Chhattisgarh, Through: Station House Officer, Police StationSaraipali, Civil & Revenue District- Mahasamund (C.G.)

¶9

--- Respondent ________________________________________________________ For Applicant : Mr. Yogeshwar Sharma, Advocate. For State/ Respondent : Mr. Adil Minhaj, Govt. Advocate.

¶10

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant

¶11

Order on Board

¶12

06/11/2020

¶13

This is the first bail application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of regular bail to the applicant, who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 200/2018, registered at Police Station- Saraipali, DistrictMahasamund (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 363, 366, 376(2)(N) of IPC and Section 4 & 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

¶14

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is in jail since 31.08.2020 and has been falsely implicated in this case. No case is made out against this applicant. The prosecutrix was not minor on the date and time of incident. However, there had been love affair between them and the

¶15

Page 2 of 3

¶16

relationship of the applicant and the prosecutrix was based on consent. The same is reflected from the statement given by the prosecutrix under Section 161 & 164 of the Cr.P.C. The prosecutrix had appeared before the Sessions Court making statement of no objection, but the same was not considered. At present, the prosecutrix is residing in the house of the applicant himself. Hence, it is prayed that this applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶17

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application submitting that according to the proof of age, the prosecutrix was only 16 years and 4 months at the time of incident, therefore, any consent or willingness on her part, has no consequence. The prosecutrix has also made statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. that she was age below 18 years at the time of incident, therefore, the applicant is not entitled for grant of bail. Hence, the application for grant of bail may be rejected.

¶18

Heard counsel for both the parties and perused the records.

¶19

As per case of the prosecution, it is alleged that on pretext of marrying, the applicant abducted the minor prosecutrix and then, by keeping her in his custody, he has exploited her sexually on a number of occasions, regarding which, the offences have been registered.

¶20

Considered on the submissions and the facts present in this case and on perusing the rejection order, it is found that the prosecutrix had appeared before the Sessions Court and made statement that she has no objection in grant of bail to this

¶21

Page 3 of 3

¶22

applicant. For these reasons, I am of this view that it would be proper to release the applicant on regular bail, hence, I feel inclined to grant bail to the applicant in this case.

¶23

Accordingly, the bail application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. is allowed.

¶24

It is directed that applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court, for his appearance as and when directed.

¶25

Certified copy, as per rules.

¶26

(Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant) Judge

¶27

Arun

Hemlal Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hemlal Sahu 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

Tassauvar Alias Chotu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Vedprakash Chauhan, Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sukchand Kashyap Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Saurabh Shukla Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Yashwant Nishad Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Khaleshwar Purena Vs State of Chhattisgarh