Allowed

Upendra Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC15 Jul 2022MCRC/2124/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh granted regular bail to an applicant detained for over two years in a POCSO and IPC case, relying on the prolonged delay and failure of the prosecutrix to appear.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; applicant released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with one surety for the same amount subject to specific conditions.

Upendra Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Chhattisgarh HC (2022)

¶1

NAFR

¶2

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶3

MCRC No. 2124 of 2022

¶4

Upendra Singh, S/o Shri Rudra Naryan Singh, Aged About 23 Years R/o Village Chargarh, P.S.- Ramachandrapur, District- Balrampur- Ramanujganj (C.G.)

¶5

---- Applicant (in Jail)

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Chhattisgarh Through PS Incharge Police Station Ramchandrapur District- Balrampur- Ramanujganj (C.G.)

¶8

---- Non-Applicant

¶9

For the Applicant	: Shri Bhupendra Singh, Advocate
For Non-Applicant	: Shri Shakti Singh Thakur, P.L.

¶10

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order On Board

¶11

15.07.2022

¶12

The applicant has preferred the first bail application under Section 439 of CrPC for grant of regular bail as he is in jail since 18.03.2020 in connection with Crime No.15/2019 registered at Police Station - District- Balrampur- Ramanujganj (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376(2)(n) of IPC 4, 6 of POCSO Act.

¶13

Allegation against the applicant is that on the pretext of marriage he committed forcibly sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix from the period of 02.01.2019 to 17.03.2020 and threatened her not to disclose the fact to anyone.

¶14

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that looking to the period of detention 20.03.2020 and one witnesses has been examined out 19 witnesses and the prosecutrix has been summoned for almost 10 to 15 times and despite of this, she is not appearing for recording her testimony. The applicant is in jail since 18.03.2020 and about almost two and a half years have gone by and trial is not likely to conclude us

¶15

-2-

¶16

at the earliest, he may be granted Bail.

¶17

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State objected and said that statement of the prosecutrix U/s. 161 and 164, was recorded. She has leveled the allegations against the present applicant and the prosecutrix is aged about 12 years and looking to the overt act. The application for bail may be rejected.

¶18

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.

¶19

Considering the fact and circumstances of the case, and considering the fact that medical evidence of the prosecutrix, that the applicant is in jail since 18.03.2020, and till date prosecutrix has not been examined and many witnesses are yet to be examined, two and a half years has passed and trial is not concluded. There is no substantial progress in the trial court, many time the summon has been issued to the prosecutrix, but she has not appear before the Court for recording her statement. The possibility of the fact that trial will take considerable period of time to conclude. I am inclined to grant bail to the applicant. Accordingly, the application is allowed . It is directed that applicant shall be released on Bail, he shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court, with the following terms and conditions:

¶20

(i) that the applicant shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police ofcere

¶21

(ii) that the applicant shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious triale

¶22

-3-

¶23

(iii) that the applicant shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to him by the said Court till disposal of the triale

¶24

(iv) that applicant will not involve himself in any offence of similar nature.

¶25

The observations made here-in-above are only for the purpose of deciding the bail application and the trial court will decide the case on its own merit without being influenced by any observation made herein-above. If any one of the above conditions is violated by applicant, the State/Victim will be at liberty to file application for cancellation of the bail granted to him.

¶26

Sd/(Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge

¶27

Ashish

Upendra Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Upendra 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

Mahendra Giri Goswami Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Vishnu Bhadra Vs Directorate of Revenue Intelligent (Dri)

Mukesh Duggal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Lakhan Lal Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dayanidhi Rana Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dr. Yogesh Kumar Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh