Allowed

Baburam Sharma v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC6 Jul 2021MCRC/2631/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh allowed a bail application under Section 439 CrPC for an accused charged with abduction and juvenile justice offences. Considering the delay in registering the FIR and the filing of the charge sheet, the Acting Chief Justice deemed the case fit for release on a personal bond with one surety.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; applicant directed to be released on personal bond of Rs.50,000 with one surety to satisfy the trial Court.

Baburam Sharma Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Bail and Remand | Chhattisgarh HC (2021)

MCRC No.2631 of 2021

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶5

MCRC No. 2631 of 2021

¶6

Baburam Sharma S/o Ramesh Sharma Aged About 28 Years R/o Village- Budha, Police Station- Mauna, District- Meerut (wrongly mentioned as 'Merath') (Uttar Pradesh)

¶7

---- Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station, Farsabahar, District- Jashpur Chhattisgarh

¶10

---- Respondent

¶11

For Applicant Mr. Deepak Gupta, Advocate For Respondent /State Mr. Sudeep Agrawal, Dy. Adv.General

¶12

(Proceedings through Video Conferencing)

¶13

Order on Board By Prashant Kumar Mishra, Ag. CJ

¶14

6/7/2021

¶15

Heard.

¶16

The applicant has preferred this bail application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No.22/2018, registered at Police Station Farsabahar, District Jashpur (CG), for the offence under Sections 363 & 370 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 7 & 9 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act.

¶17

Applicant was married to a girl, who is resident of village where Abhay Kerketta (henceforth 'the victim') was residing. It is

¶18

¶19

MCRC No.2631 of 2021

¶20

alleged that on 18-3-2017 the applicant allured the victim to accompany him to Delhi for a comfortable livelihood and handsome income. The victim was, thus, abducted and he stayed with the applicant for about nine months.

¶21

Learned counsel for the State would oppose the bail application.

¶22

The FIR has been registered on 22-3-2018 i.e. after about one year of the incident. At this point of time the victim had already returned to his native village. The main allegation appears to be exploiting the victim for household work without paying any remuneration.

¶23

Considering the entire facts situation of the case, particularly considering the fact regarding delay in lodging the FIR; as also for the fact that the applicant is in jail since 6-2-2021 and the charge sheet has already been filed, I am of the opinion that present is a fit case to release the applicant on regular bail.

¶24

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed and the applicant is directed to be released on bail on his executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. He is directed to appear before the trial Court on each and every date given by the said Court.

¶25

Certified copy as per rules.

¶26

Sd/-

¶27

Gowri

¶28

(Prashant Kumar Mishra) Acting Chief Justice

Baburam Sharma v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Baburam Sharma 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

Nnamdi @ Donald Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Acchelal Verma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Debibrata Mahapatra Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shivnandan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sudha Kujur Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mantram Dahre Vs State of Chhattisgarh