Allowed

Vimal Ram Chouhan @ Monti v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC13 Jul 2022MCRC/4106/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court allowed first bail application by Vimal Ram Chouhan under Section 439 CrPC for offences under IPC and POCSO Act. Court noted prosecution case lacks medical support and victim raised no objection. Bail granted with personal bond.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- with one solvent surety for like amount.

Vimal Ram Chouhan @ Monti Vs State of… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Chhattisgarh HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

MCRC No. 4106 of 2022

¶5

Vimal Ram Chouhan @ Monti S/o Nandlal Chouhan, Aged About 22 Years R/o Bisbahari Rangola, P.S. Bageecha, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh Presently Address Gersa Bhagatpara, P.S. Sitapur,district Sarguja Chhattisgarh.

¶6

---- Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, P.S. Sitapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh.

¶9

	---- Non-Applicant
For the Applicant	: Mr. Pawan Kumar Kashyap, Advocate
For Non-Applicant	: Mr. Shakti Singh Thakur,P. L.

¶10

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order On Board

¶11

13.07.2022

¶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 13.11.2021 in connection with Crime No.284/2021 registered at Police StationSitapur, District-Surguja (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376(2)(N) of the IPC and Section 5(L)/6 of POCSO Act.

¶13

The case of prosecution in brief, is that on 08.01.2021 the complainant has made written complaint to the concerned Police Station alleging that the prosecutrix went to anywhere from her house without any information and she did not give any information to her relative, then police has registered a missing report against the unknown person under Section 363 of the IPC and after recovered the prosecutrix police has registered offence under Sections 363, 366, 376(2)(N) of the IPC and Section 5(L)/6 of POCSO Act against the applicant.

¶14

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has not committed any offence and has been falsely implicated in the case, he further submits that the prosecutrix has been examined, her age is doubtful, there is no medical to support the prosecution case and looking to the statement of prosecutrix which is filed as Annexure A-2.

¶15

¶16

Application is in jail since 13.11.2021 and still trial is not concluded, therefore, he may be released on bail.

¶17

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application and submits that prosecutrix was minor at the time of commission of offence, though medical report and statement of the prosecutrix do not support the prosecution case. However, other witnesses have to be examined by the prosecution and appreciation of the evidence has to be done by the trial Court.

¶18

Prosecutrix appeared through video conferencing on earlier occasion and she has raised no objection for grant of bail to the applicant.

¶19

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, looking to the statement of prosecutrix recorded before trial Court and medical report does not support the prosecution case and looking to the detention period and trial may take some time, I am inclined to allow this bail application.

¶20

Accordingly, the bail application filed by applicant is allowed and it is directed that applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one solvent surety for the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court. He shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given by the said trial Court, till disposal of the trial.

¶21

It is made clear that the observations made hereinabove is 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 hereinabove. It is also made clear that the victim/complainant or State is at liberty to move an application regarding cancellation of bail of the applicant in the event of applicant involving himself in similar offence in future.

¶22

Certified copy as per rules.

¶23

Sd/-

¶24

Sd/-

¶25

(Sachin Singh Rajput)

¶26

Judge

¶27

parul

Vimal Ram Chouhan @ Monti v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vimal Ram Chouhan @ Monti 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

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Shanti Devi @ Shukhamain and Another Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shobhit Tiwari Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dharmveer Sharma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Pawan Pal (Wrongly Written in Bail Rejection Order as Pawanlal) Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Jayanti Lal Rohini @ Meghwal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Gulzar Banjare Vs State of Chhattisgarh