Allowed

Mahendra Kumar Baghel v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC27 Jul 2023MCRC/2175/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh granted joint bail to three accused applicants charged with offenses under IPC, POCSO Act, and SC/ST Act. Victims alleged inappropriate behavior by the teachers regarding students.

What did the court decide?

Accused granted bail on furnishing personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- each with one surety for the like sum; release subjectively upon compliance with stipulated conditions.

Mahendra Kumar Baghel Vs State of… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Chhattisgarh HC (2023)

¶1

NAFR

¶2

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶3

MCRC No. 3861 of 2023

¶4

Pramod Chandrakar S/o Jageshwar Chandrakar Aged About 52 Years R/o Village Subhash Nagar, Mahasamund, P.S. And District Mahasamund (C.G.)

¶5

	--- Applicant Versus
	State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, P.S. Komakhan, District Mahasamund (C.G.) --- Respondent. MCRC No. 2175 of 2023
•	Mahendra Kumar Baghel S/o Shri Bhaduram Baghel Aged About 46 Years R/o Village And Post Khamhariya, Police Station Khallari, Tehsil Bagbahara, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh --- Applicant.
	• Versus
•	State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Komakhan, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent. • MCRC No. 4068 of 2023
•	Aaskaran Sahu S/o Shri Girdhari Lal Aged About 49 Years R/o Kolda, Ps Tendukona District - Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. --- Applicant.
	• Versus
•	State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Komakhan, District - Mahasamund Chhattisgarh.
	--- Respondent.

¶6

CAUSE TITLE TAKEN FROM CIS PERIPHERY

¶7

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For respective App licants : Mr Sunil Sahu, Advocate, Mr. C.P. Lahrey, Advocate, Ms. Vaishali
Mahilong, Advocate and Mr.
Subhank Tiwari, Advocate
For Respondent/State : Ms. Smriti Shrivastava, P.L.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari

¶8

Order On Board

¶9

27.07.2023

¶10

Since, these above bail applications are being arising out of same crime number, therefore, they are being disposed off by this common order.

¶11

The accused/applicants who are in custody in connection with Crime No.29/2023 registered at Police Station - Komakhan, District – Mahasamund, for the offence punishable under Sections 292, 354, 34 of the IPC, Sections 8 and 10 of the POCSO Act, Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Section 67A of the I.T. Act, have filed this application for grant of bail.

¶12

Case of the prosecution in nutshell is that, the complainant has lodged an FIR at Police Station – Komakhan, stating in it that the the present applicants are school teachers who behaved in an inappropriate manner with the girl students by showing obscene videos. When village people objected the said act, the accused persons abused them filthily. It is also mentioned that the victim girls belonged to Scheduled Tribe category, so the offence under the SC/ST Act has also been added. Based on above allegations, the aforesaid offences were registered against the present applicants.

¶13

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the accused/applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the case. It is next submitted that due to some misunderstanding the FIR has been lodged. It is next argued that the material witnesses have been examined and they have not supported the case of the prosecution and he has also annexed the copy of deposition of 16 witnesses with the bail application. It is further submitted that the applicants are behind the bar since 27.02.2023 and 28.02.2023 respectively, therefore, if they may be set at liberty by granting bail, they would

¶14

abide by all terms and conditions imposed on them while granting bail.

¶15

Learned State counsel opposes the prayer for bail.

¶16

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of accusation particularly considering the back drop of the case, pre-trial detention, as also perusing the statement recorded by the prosecution, this Court is of the opinion that the accused/applicants can be granted bail. Accordingly, the application is allowed and it is directed that on each of them furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court,

¶17

the applicants shall be released on bail on the following conditions:-

¶18

(a) They 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,

¶19

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

¶20

(c) they shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to them by the said Court till disposal of case,

¶21

(d) they shall not involve themselves in any offence of similar nature in future.

¶22

Sd/-

¶23

(Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge

¶24

yasmin

Mahendra Kumar Baghel v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahendra Kumar Baghel 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

Xyz ( Child in Conflictl With Law) Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shubham Taneja Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Priyanka Mattani Verma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Suraj Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Prahlad Bagh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Anshul Soni Vs State of Chhattisgarh