An anticipatory bail petition was rejected by the Chhattisgarh High Court. The court, noting the applicant's alleged act of catching and assaulting a minor prosecutrix, declined to extend bail despite defenses regarding FIR delay and lack of medical evidence.
Application for grant of anticipatory bail rejected.
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. (A) No. 1209 of 2021
Dujram Patel, S/o Lal Bahadur Patel, Aged about 32 Years, R/o Village – Chaple Tah. & P.S. Kharsia, Distt. - Raigarh (C.G.)
---- Applicant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh, through : P.S. - Kharsia, Distt.- Raigarh (C.G.)
---- Non-applicant
For Applicant : Mr. Vineet Kumar Pandey, Advocate For Non-applicant : Mr. Roshan Dubey, PL
Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K.Chandravanshi
Order On Board
18/10/2021
(1) The applicant has filed this application for grant of anticipatory bail as he is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 520/2021 registered at police station Kharsia, Distt. - Raigarh (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Section 354 of IPC and Sections 7 & 8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
(2) Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 24.08.2021 when victim/prosecurix went to the house of applicant to give vegetables and when after taking vegetables from the victim, mother of the applicant went inside the kitchen, then applicant came there and caught hold the victim from her backside and thereby committed the aforesaid offences.
2
(3) Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the offence in question as he has not committed any offence. He further submits that there is delay of two days in lodging the First Information Report and there is no medical report of the victim/prosecutrix to support the case of the prosecution, therefore, the applicant may be extended the benefit of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
(4) On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would submit that FIR has been lodged on the next date of the incident, therefore, there is no delay in lodging the FIR. He also submits that since the applicant has caught hold the victim/prosecution from her backside, therefore, there is no need of medical evidence because it is a case of sexual assault only.
give vegetables and when after taking vegetables from the victim, mother of the applicant went inside the kitchen, the applicant caught hold the victim prosecutrix from her back side.
to have been committed by the applicant with the minor prosecutrix, I am not inclined to extend the benefit of anticipatory bail in favour of the applicant. Thus, the application for grant of anticipatory bail is rejected.
D/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to an applicant apprehending arrest for alleged offences under IPC Section 354 and POCSO Sections 7 and 8.
Whether the delay in lodging the FIR and absence of a medical report in a case involving a minor victim are sufficient grounds to grant anticipatory bail.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Dujram Patel
N.K. Chandravanshi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
