Allowed

Malaiya Swami v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC6 Nov 2023CRA/1017/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bench considered criminal appeal against rejection of bail in child trafficking and sexual exploitation case. Court found victim deposition showed hostility to prosecution. Allowed appeal and directed release of appellant on bail with personal bond and conditions to obey trial court dates.

What did the court decide?

Criminal appeal allowed; appellant released on bail upon execution of personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with surety and compliance of conditions.

Malaiya Swami Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Chhattisgarh HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

CRA No. 1017 of 2023

¶5

Malaiya Swami, S/o Marimuttu Swami, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Village Katiyaras, Thana Dantewada, District Dantewada, Chhattisgarh. ---- Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Police Station Kotwali, Dantewada District Dantewada, Chhattisgarh.

¶8

---- Respondent

¶9

For Appellant : Mr. Vikash A. Shrivastava, Advocates. For State/respondent : Mr. Gagan Tiwari, Deputy G.A.

¶10

Hon'ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi Order on Board

¶11

06.11.2023

¶12

1. The appellant has preferred this criminal appeal under Section 14(A)(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities), Act, 1989 (for short ‘the Act 1989’) against order dated 28.03.2023 passed by the learned Upper Sessions Judge (F.T.C.) Dantewada, Act, District South Bastar Dantewada (C.G.) in connection with Crime No.55/2021 registered at Police Station Kotwali Dantewada, District Dantewada (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections

¶13

¶14

363, 366 (क), 370, 376, 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 4 & 1 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Section 3(1)(V) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, whereby the bail application of the appellant under Section 439 CrPC has been rejected.

¶15

2. Facts of the case, in brief, is that minor victim used to reside in the house of the complainant and also pursuing her studies from their. On 08.07.2021, a missing written complaint has been lodged by the care taker Devi Swami to the effect that victim has left her house without giving any information to the complainant. Thereafter on 12.03.2022 victim has been recovered from Police Station Makdon, District Ujjain, Madhya Pradesh, where she has stated that she has married with the co-accused Jeetendra Singh Parihar @ Kalu Rajput and they were residing together, as husband and wife. Based on the above facts, present crime has been registered against the present appellant and other coaccused persons.

¶16

3. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that appellant has been falsely implicated in crime in question. He was not indulged in any way in alleged crime. It is further submitted that as per the school record recovered by the police, victim was marginal age of majority. He further submits that other coaccused persons namely Smt. Kiran Parmar @ Sandhya and Jitendra Singh Parihar @ Kalu Rajput have already been granted bail the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide common

¶17

¶18

Order dated 23.03.2023 in MCRC No.9920/2022 and other connected matter. He further submits that appellant is in jail since 11.04.2022. Deposition of the victim has been recorded and the certified copy of the same has been filed by the appellant, in which she has turned completely hostile, therefore, the appellant may be released on bail.

¶19

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application and submits that it is a case of child trafficking along with the sexual exploitation of the minor victim, therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

¶20

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary as well as the material available on record.

¶21

6. The appellant has filed a copy of the deposition of the victim, who has examined as PW-3 before the learned trial Court along with the certified copy of the depositions of other two witnesses i.e., PW-1 and PW-2. Deposition of the victim shows that she has turned completely hostile and not supported the case of prosecution at all. Other 2 co-accused person have already been granted bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide common Order dated 23.03.2023, I am inclined to release the appellant on regular bail.

¶22

7. Accordingly, the criminal appeal is allowed. It is directed that in the event of the appellant’s executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety of the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court for his appearance before the

¶23

¶24

concerned Court as and when directed by the said Court, he be released on bail, on following conditions:-

¶25

(i) he 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,

¶26

(ii) he shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial,

¶27

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

¶28

(iv) he shall not involve himself in any offence of similar nature in future.

¶29

Sd/-

¶30

(Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge

¶31

Deepti Jha

Malaiya Swami v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Malaiya Swami 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

Nazir Ahmad Khan Vs Shekh Shafik Ahmed

Shaniram Vs Sohdabai

Tibu Yadav @ Jagdish Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

State of Chhattisgarh Vs a. Anita Rao

Awdhesh Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shyamal Mudi Vs State of Chhattisgarh