Allowed

Leeladhar Yadu v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC20 Apr 2022MCRC/2692/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Bench allowed a second bail application. Despite serious sexual offence allegations under IPC 376 and POCSO, bail was granted after the prosecutrix failed to appear despite notice, citing her prior testimony at the trial court suggesting she no longer supports the prosecution.

What did the court decide?

Regular bail allowed upon furnishing a bail bond of Rs.25,000/- with surety on conditions of regular appearance and no tampering with witnesses.

Leeladhar Yadu Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Chhattisgarh HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT of CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

MCRC No. 2692 of 2022

¶5

Leeladhar Yadu S/o Sohan Yadu aged about 20 Years R/o Gokulpur Ward Dhamtari, Presently R/o Village- Bhatgaon, Police Station- Rudri, District- Dhamtari (C.G.)

¶6

------Applicant

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

State of Chhattisgarh through: Station House Officer, Police Station City Kotwali, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh ------- Non-applicant

¶9

For Applicant : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Sahu, Advocate. For Non-applicant : Mr. Aman Kesharwani, Panel Lawyer.

¶10

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

¶11

20/04/2022

¶12

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. 406/2021 registered at police station City Kotwali, Dhamtari District-Dhamtari (C.G.) for offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC and Section 6 of Protection of Child from Sexual Offences, Act, 2012 (POCSO Act).

¶13

Case of prosecution is, that prosecutrix lodged report on 30.09.2021 through written complaint stating therein that on 29.07.2021 in mid-night about 11:30 pm, applicant entered into her house and committed forceful sexual intercourse with her on the pretext of marriage. It is also alleged that prior to the alleged date of incident, applicant has committed sexual intercourse with her on several occasions on the pretext of marriage. Based on the report lodged by the prosecutrix, aforementioned crime was registered against applicant and he was arrested on 30.09.2021.

¶14

¶15

Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the crime, he has not committed any offence as alleged against him. He also contended that after withdrawal of first bail application, prosecutrix was examined before the trial Court on 11.03.2022 and she has not made any allegation against applicant. Applicant is in jail since 30.09.2021. There are as many as 13 witnesses out of which only 1 witness was examined till 11.03.2022; trial may take some time to conclude, hence, applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶16

Learned State counsel, while opposing the submissions of learned counsel for the applicant, would submit that in the F.I.R. as well as in the statement of prosecutrix recorded under Section 161 & 164 of CrPC, there are specific allegations against applicant, hence, he is not entitled for grant of bail. However, he does not dispute with the submission of learned counsel for applicant, based on Annexure P-3 deposition, that prosecutrix was examined before the trial Court but he submits that evidence of prosecutrix is required to be appreciated by the trial Court.

¶17

Notice under Section 439(1-A) of CrPC for appearance of prosecutrix/ complainant/ victim, was issued by this Court, in which, date of appearance was mentioned as 18.04.2022. When the case was taken up for hearing on the said date, no one appeared on behalf of prosecutrix or the prosecutrix herself before this Court, though served and the case was passed over for today, 20.04.2022. Today also, there is no representation on behalf of prosecutrix.

¶18

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents placed along with bail application.

¶19

¶20

Taking into consideration, facts and circumstances of the case, nature of allegations levelled by prosecutrix in the F.I.R. and further the submission of learned counsel for applicant that prosecutrix was examined before the trial Court and has not supported the case of prosecution; applicant is in jail since 30.09.2021, without commenting anything on merits, I am inclined to allow the bail application.

¶21

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 satisfaction of the Court on the conditions that-

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

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.

¶25

Certified copy as per rules.

¶26

P a w a n

Leeladhar Yadu v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Leeladhar Yadu 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

Chandrapratap Porte Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Digma Sharnarthi Prathmik Shala Digma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Munnalal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Anil Kumar Das Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dr. Manohar Gupta Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Adim Jati Sewa Sahkari Society Maryadit Vs State of Chhattisgarh