Allowed

Rajendra Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC16 Feb 2022MCRC/126/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh allowed a second bail application filed under Section 439 CrPC. The applicant, arrested for offences including POCSO and abducting a minor, was released on bail after the prosecutrix submitted no objection to the grant. The court directed furnishing of a bond on specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was released on regular bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 25,000/- with a surety in a like sum.

Rajendra Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Bail and Remand | Chhattisgarh HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT of CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

MCRC No. 126 of 2022

¶5

Rajendra Singh Son of Sunil Singh aged about 18 Years Resident of Village Mahkepi Chowki, Ganeshmod, District BalrampurRamanujganj Chhattisgarh.

¶6

------Applicant

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

State of Chhattisgarh through: Station House Officer, P.S. Balrampur, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh

¶9

------- Non-applicant

¶10

For Applicant : Mr. Dashrath Kushwaha, Advocate.

¶11

For Non-applicant/State : Mr. Afroj Khan, Panel Lawyer

¶12

Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge

¶13

ORDER

¶14

16/02/2022

¶15

Prosecutrix along with her father is present before this Court through virtual mode from District Legal Services Authority (DLSA), Balrampur, Chhattisgarh.

¶16

Applicant has filed this Second Bail application under Section 439 of CrPC for grant of regular bail as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 98/2021 registered at police station Balrampur, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) for offence punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376(2)(n) of IPC and Section 5(l) & 6 of POCSO Act, 2012.

¶17

Case of prosecution is, that father of prosecutrix lodged missing report of her daughter with the concerned police station on 28.05.2021 stating that his daughter is found missing since 20.05.2021. Based on the report, FIR was initially registered against unknown person for offence punishable under Section

¶18

¶19

363 of IPC. During course of investigation, prosecutrix was recovered on 29.05.2021 from possession of applicant and based on his statement recorded under Section 161 of CrPC, applicant was arrested in aforementioned crime on 30.05.2021.

¶20

Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that applicant has been falsely implicated in the offence, he has not committed any offence as alleged against him. He also submits that after dismissal of first bail application as withdrawn, prosecutrix got examined by the prosecution on 14.12.2021 and she has not levelled any allegation of any nature against applicant, deposition of which is placed on record as Annexure A-3. Applicant is in jail since 30.05.2021, hence, he may be enlarged on bail.

¶21

Learned State counsel, while opposing the submissions of learned counsel for the applicant, would submit that serious allegations have been levelled by the prosecutrix against applicant in her statement recorded under Section 161 and Section 164 of CrPC, hence, he is not entitle for grant of bail.

¶22

Prosecutrix is present before this Court through virtual mode and submits that she is having no objection in granting bail to applicant.

¶23

I have heard learned counsel for the parties as well as considered the submission of prosecutrix before this Court.

¶24

Taking into consideration, nature of allegations, facts and circumstances of the case, submission of prosecutrix before this Court as well as submission made by learned counsel for applicant with respect to Annexure A-3 which is the copy of deposition sheet of prosecutrix that she has not levelled any

¶25

¶26

allegation against applicant, without commenting anything on merits, I am inclined to allow this second bail application.

¶27

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. It is directed that the applicant shall be released on regular bail, upon furnishing a bail bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with surety in the like sum to the

¶28

satisfaction of the Court on the conditions that-

¶29

a) Applicant shall appear before the Trial Court regularly on each and every date, unless exempted from appearance.

¶30

b) Applicant shall not, in any manner, tamper with the prosecution witnesses.

¶31

c) If the applicant is found involved in similar offence in the future, it will be open for the State to apply for cancellation of Bail.

¶32

Certified copy as per rules.

¶33

Sd/-

¶34

(Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge

¶35

P a w a n

Rajendra Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendra Singh 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

Taramuni Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Gendlal Dewangan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Vikash Koshle Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Peela @ Prakash Chandra Gupta Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Amit Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shailendra Vs State of Chhattisgarh