Allowed

Raju Jangde v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC15 Jul 2021MCRC/2973/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge allowed a first bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. alleging false implication. Despite serious charges including IPC 366 and POCSO offences, the court allowed bail after noting an improvement in the prosecutrix's statement.

What did the court decide?

Application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for regular bail allowed; discharge on bond of Rs. 25,000 with one surety.

Raju Jangde Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Chhattisgarh HC (2021)

¶1

-1-

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

MCRC No. 2973 of 2021

¶5

Raju Jangde S/o Balram Jangde, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Patori (Belar), P.S. Fingeshwar, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh., District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh

¶6

---- Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Station House Officer, Police Station Panduka District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh., District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh

¶9

---- Non-applicant

¶10

For Applicant – Mr. S.P. Sahu, Advocate. For State/Non-applicant – Ms. Akshara Amit, Panel Lawyer.

¶11

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

¶12

15-07-2021

¶13

1 . Heard on the application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. This is first bail application before this Court filed by the applicant for grant of regular bail. The applicant has been arrested on 17-12-2020 in connection with Crime No.127/2020 registered at Police Station – Panduka District Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh for the offence under Section 363, 366, 376 (2) (<) of the IPC and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

¶14

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant, that the applicant has been falsely implicated. He is in jail since 17-12-2020. The statement of the prosecutrix under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. shows that the prosecutrix was willing and consenting party. Hence, there is no case present against this applicant. Therefore, it is prayed that the applicant be granted bail.

¶15

3 . Learned counsel for the State/non-applicant opposes the application submitting that the age of the prosecutrix was below 16 years, therefore, any consent given by her is immaterial. Hence, the application may be rejected.

¶16

4 . The prosecutrix is virtually present through Help Desk of the High Court. She has objection in grant of bail to the applicant.

¶17

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

¶18

-2-

¶19

As per the prosecution case, it is alleged that this applicant abducted the minor prosecutrix, kept her in custody and had physical relation with her knowing well that she was minor and not capable of giving consent.

¶20

7 . Considered on the submissions. After taking into consideration the statement of the prosecutrix under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. which appears to be an improvement from her previous statement, I feel inclined to allow this application.

¶21

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.

¶22

9 . Certified copy as per rules.

¶23

Sd/-

¶24

(Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant) Judge

¶25

Aadil

Raju Jangde v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raju Jangde 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

Kashi Prasad Karosia Vs Nagar Palika Nigam and Ors.

Rajendra Ram Vs Union of India and Ors.

M/s R.D. Constructions Vs The State Of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Mano Bai Vs Indian Postal Department

Chouthram Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ashok Choudhari Vs State of Chhattisgarh