Dismissed

Mahesh Kumar Jon v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC2 Aug 2022MCRCA/638/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this anticipatory bail application under Section 438 CrPC, the applicant alleged a false case due to a property dispute. The High Court heard both counsels, examined the prosecutrix's statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC, and rejected the bail application, noting the serious allegations against an adult regarding a 14-year-old child.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC was rejected.

Mahesh Kumar Jon Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Child Custody and Guardianship | Chhattisgarh HC (2022)

¶1

NAFR

¶2

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶3

MCRC(A) No. 638 of 2022

¶4

Mahesh Kumar Jon S/o Shri Jejan Jon Aged About 58 Years R/o- Village Koraldand, Tahsil Manpur, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.)

¶5

---- Applicant

¶6

Versus State of Chhattisgarh Through - Police Station Mohala, DistrictRajanandgaon (C.G.) ---- Respondent - For Applicant Shri Arvind Kumar Dubey, Advocate For State - Ms. Richa Shukla, Dy. GA

¶7

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order on Board

¶8

02/08/2022

¶9

This application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 46/2016 registered in Police Station Mohala, District- Rajanandgaon (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 376,376 (3), 376(2)(F) of the IPC and 4 and 6 of POCSO Act.

¶10

Prosecution story in brief is that on 23.03.2022 prosecutrix informed her mother on mobile phone that on 22.03.2022 her maternal grandfather had called her in the bedroom and asked her to sleep with him, but when she refused for that, he gave a threat to her. It is also alleged that he pulled off her cloths, pressed her breasts and licked her private part. He is also alleged to have threatened her of life in case she disclosed the incident to anyone.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the story which has

¶12

-2-

¶13

been putforth by the prosecution appears to be highly unnatural. He submits that on account of the property related dispute between the members of two families the accused/applicant has been implicated in a false case. He submits that even the medical report does not support the case of prosecution and therefore, he may be extended benefit of 438 of CrPC.

¶14

On the other hand, learned counsel for the state opposes the application for anticipatroy bail and submits that looking to the age of the prosecutrix i.e. 14 years and her statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of the CrPC where number of allegations have been levelled against the present applicant which constitute the offence of rape provided U/s 375 IPC and also the provision of POCSO Act, theprefore, the application may be rejected.

¶15

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶16

Having considered the material available on record and the statements of the prosecutrix recordedd under Sections 161 and 164 of Cr.PC, this court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail. Accordingly the anticipatory bail is rejected.

¶17

Sd/-

¶18

(Sachin Singh Rajput)

¶19

Judge

¶20

Ashish

Mahesh Kumar Jon v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahesh Kumar Jon 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

Seema Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ravi Das Panika Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dhiresh Khaira Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ravi Kumar Harijan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Brishdhvaj Saraf Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ramesh Bharia Vs State of Chhattisgarh