Allowed

Resham Das Mahant @ Vimal Das v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC4 Aug 2022MCRC/5161/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh allowed a first bail application filed under Section 439 CrPC. The applicant, charged with abduction and sexual intercourse involving a minor under IPC and POCSO, was granted regular bail on furnishing a bond of Rs. 50,000 with one surety, considering the marriage and birth of their child, without commenting on merits.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; applicant released on regular bail by furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 50,000 with one surety.

Resham Das Mahant @ Vimal Das Vs State of… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Chhattisgarh HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRC No. 5161 of 2022

¶4

Resham Das Mahant @ Vimal Das S/o Manik Das Mahant Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Tendubhatha, Police Station Gharghoda, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh.

¶5

---- Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Lailunga, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh.

¶8

--- Respondent

¶9

For Applicant	: Mr. Dasrath Prajapati, Advocate.
For Respondent	: Mr. Kunal Das, PL.
For Objector	: Mr. Tarun Dadsena, Advocate.

¶10

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board

¶11

04/08/2022

¶12

This is First bail application filed under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of regular bail to applicant, who has been arrested in connection with Crime No.249/2020, registered at PS -Lailunga, District Raigarh, (C.G.), for commission of offence punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 4 & 6 of POCSO Act, 2012.

¶13

Case of prosecution in brief is that on 30.10.2020, father of prosecutrix/minor girl lodged complaint to the concerned Police Station mentioning therein that present applicant has abducted her minor girl and committed sexual intercourse with her knowingly well that she was minor aged about 16 years, 11 months and 1 day. Based upon complaint, aforementioned FIR was registered against applicant.

¶14

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has falsely been implicated in this case. Applicant and prosecutrix were having love affairs, prosecutrix went to Delhi with applicant with her own will, where they performed marriage and out of their wedlock, they were blessed with one child, who is at present aged about 5 months, this fact is admitted by prosecutrix in her statements recorded under Sections 161 & 164 of Cr.PC. They resided in Delhi for long time about two years and when they came back their village, the Police

¶15

¶16

arrested the applicant. Applicant is in jail since 20.05.2022. Charge-sheet has already been filed and there is no likelihood early disposal of trial. Hence, applicant may be released on regular bail.

¶17

On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application and submits that marriage between applicant and prosecutrix do not absolve the offence/crime committed by applicant. On the date of abduction, prosecutrix was minor, hence, applicant, is not entitled for grant of bail.

¶18

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶19

Considering entire facts and circumstances of the case, nature of allegation, submissions of learned counsel for parties including Objector, the fact that applicant and prosecutrix got married and from their wedlock there is a child aged about 5 months, the fact of marriage and child has been stated by prosecutrix in statement recorded under Sections 161 & 164 of Cr.P.C, applicant is in jail since 20.05.2022, charge-sheet has already been filed, conclusion of trial may take some time, without commenting anything on merits of the case, I am inclined to allow this bail application.

¶20

Accordingly, bail application is allowed. It is directed that applicant shall be released on regular bail, on his furnishing a bail bond in sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety in like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court on the conditions that-

¶21

a) 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 from disclosing such fact to the Court.

¶22

b) Applicant shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial, and

¶23

c) Applicant shall appear before trial Court on each and every date given to him by the said Court till disposal of the trial.

¶24

Certified copy as per rules.

¶25

Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶26

J/-

Resham Das Mahant @ Vimal Das v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Resham Das Mahant @ Vimal Das 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

Kavita Nagvanshi Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rekhram Markam Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shivprasad Dewangan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Omprakash Mehra Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Santosh Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sonu Lakda Vs State of Chhattisgarh