Allowed

Santosh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC9 Aug 2021MCRC/2005/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Chhattisgarh granted regular bail to the applicant under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for offences including abduction and sexual exploitation of a minor under IPC and POCSO Act. Bail was allowed noting the prosecutrix had turned hostile in her examination-in-chief.

What did the court decide?

Application for grant of regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. allowed; applicant to be released on personal bond of Rs.25,000 with one surety.

Santosh Kumar Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Chhattisgarh HC (2021)

¶1

-1-

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

M.Cr.C. No.2005 of 2021

¶5

Santosh Kumar S/o Ramlal Panika Aged About 19 Years R/o VillageDhawalpur, Out Post- Koda, Police Station Jhagrakhand, District- Koriya (Chhattisgarh)

¶6

---- Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer, Police StationKelhari, District- Koriya (Chhattisgarh)

¶9

---- Non-applicant

¶10

For Applicant : Mr. Hemant Kumar Agrawal, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Sameer Oraon, Govt. Advocate.

¶11

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant Order on Board

¶12

09-08-2021Sd/-

¶13

Heard on the application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. This is the first bail application filed for grant of regular bail. The applicant has been arrested on 28.01.2021, in connection with Crime No.10/2021, registered at Police Station- Kelhari, District- Koriya, C.G. for offence punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 376(2)(N) of I.P.C. and Sections 04 and 06 of POCSO Act, 2012.

¶14

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that this applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. The applicant is in jail since 28.01.2021. The prosecutrix has been examined in the trial and she has not supported the prosecution case. Hence, it is prayed that this applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶15

Learned counsel for the State/non-applicant opposes the application

¶16

-2-

¶17

and submits that the prosecutrix was minor and further, there are other witnesses to be examined in the trial, therefore, it is prayed that this application may be rejected.

¶18

The prosecutrix had virtually appeared before this Court on 26.07.2021 and stated that she had no objection in grant of bail to the applicant.

¶19

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.

¶20

According to the prosecution case, it is alleged that this applicant abducted the minor prosecutrix, kept her in his custody and then also exploited her sexually, knowing well that she was a minor and is incapable of giving any valid consent. Hence, this case.

¶21

Considered on the submissions. Perused the certified copy of deposition of prosecutrix which shows that the prosecutrix has turned hostile, therefore, I feel inclined to allow this application.

¶22

Consequently, this application filed by the applicant under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail is hereby allowed. It is directed that the 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 Court, for his appearance as and when directed.

¶23

Certified copy as per rules.

¶24

Sd/(Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant) Judge

¶25

Monika

Santosh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh 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

Manager,Cg.State Co.Mar.Fed.Ltd. Vs Ram Swaroop Sahu

Dr. Iti Chaturvedi Vs The Assistant Engineer , Chhattigarh State Power Distribution Company Limited and Ors.

Chaman Lal Sahu Vs Lawan Kumar and Ors.

Jeetbahan Ram Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Lakshman Pardhi Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Bhojlal Markandey Vs State of Chhattisgarh