The High Court rejected the bail application of an applicant charged with abduction and rape, finding consistent prosecutrix statements. Cancellation petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. were disposed of as Section 439 remedy remained available.
Baile of applicant Paras Yadav rejected; Cr.M.P. Nos. 212 and 267 disposed off without comments.
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
M.Cr.C. No. 254 of 2021
Paras Yadav S/o- Santosh Yadav Aged About 24 Years R/o- Fandwani, P.S. And District - Mungeli, Chhattisgarh
---- Applicant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Officer-In-Charge Of P.S.- City Kotwali Of Mungeli, Dist.- Mungeli Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondent
And
Cr.M.P. No. 212 of 2021
“MXY” D/o Naresh Kumar Sahu Aged About 17 Years Through Legal Guardian Naresh Kumar Sahu R/o Village Fandwani, Police Station Mungeli, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh.
---- Petitioner
Vs
---- Respondents
And
Cr.M.P. No. 267 of 2021
MXY (Description of the petitioner submitted in a closed envelop)
---- Petitioner
Vs
---- Respondents
For the Applicant : Shri Pallav Mishra, Advocate in M.Cr.C. No.254 of 2021. For the Petitioners : Dr. Shailesh Ahuja, Advocate in Cr.M.P. Nos. 212 and 267 of 2021.
2
For Respondent No.2 in Cr.M.P. Nos. 212 and 267 of 2021 : Shri Pallav Mishra, Advocate. For the Respondent/State : Shri Jitendra Shukla, P.L.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant ORDER
06.04.2021
Heard.
Act, 2012.
3
been granted bail by the trial Court itself, the complainant had filed Cr.M.P. under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C for cancellation of their bail, hence, this bail application may be rejected.
4
25.9.2020 from the custody of applicant – Paras Yadav. The prosecutrix gave a statement under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. on 25.9.2020 that she was abducted and raped by applicant – Paras Yadav. The names of respondent No.2 in Cr.M.P. Nos. 212 and 267 of 2021 appeared in the statement of the prosecutrix under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. that they were the persons who abducted her and took her to main accused – Paras Yadav.
5
Supreme Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Ram Kishan Rohtagi and Ors ., reported in AIR 1983 SC 67 , that in case of availability of statutory remedy, Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked. Hence, without making any comments on the petitions filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. by the petitioner in these cases, both the applications are disposed off.
Sd/-
(Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant) Judge
Nimmi
3 issues framed by the court
Whether regular bail should be granted to Paras Yadav given consistent allegations by the prosecutrix?
Whether cancellation of bail under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is maintainable when Section 439 Cr.P.C. remedy is available?
Whether the High Court should interfere with the trial court's bail decision for co-accused in the same crime?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Ram Kishan Rohtagi and Ors.Followed¶44
Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Ram Kishan Rohtagi and Ors., AIR 1983 SC 67 · Who else cites this
4 provisions across 3 enactments
Paras Yadav
State Of Chhattisgarh
MXY
Netram Sahu
MXY
Parmendra Sahu
Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant
Nimmi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
