Allowed

Nohar Alias Bhikham Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC20 Jun 2023MCRC/2221/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment grants bail to an accused person alleged to have committed offences under IPC and POCSO Act. The court considered the victim's inconsistent statements, a delay in FIR registration, and a prior acquittal of a similar allegation against another accused. The court deemed the circumstances appropriate for release on bail.

What did the court decide?

Release of applicant on bail on furnishing personal bond of Rs.25,000/- with one surety for the like sum.

Nohar Alias Bhikham Sahu Vs State of… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Chhattisgarh HC (2023)

¶1

NAFR

¶2

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶3

MCRC No. 2221 of 2023

¶4

Nohar Alias Bhikham Sahu S/o Dineshwar Sahu Aged About 19 Years R/o Village Pahanda, Arang, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶5

--- Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station - Arang, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh --- Respondent

¶8

CAUSE TITLE TAKEN FROM CIS PERIPHERY

¶9

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------For Applicant : Mr. Shubham Tripathi, Adv. For Respondent/State : Mr. Anil Tripathi, PL. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Order On Board

¶10

20.06.2023

¶11

This application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of bail has been filed by the accused/applicant who is languishing in jail since 05.01.2023 in connection with Crime No.801/2022 registered at Police Station Arang, District Raipur for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376 & 376 (2) (n) of IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act.

¶12

2 Prosecution case, in short, is that father of the prosecutrix lodged a missing complaint on 27.12.2022 alleging that his daughter is missing from 17.12.2022 and she had left the house without informing anything. During investigation, the prosecutrix was recovered on 29.12.2022 and while interrogating she disclosed that applicant allured her and took her to Mahasamund and forcefully made physical relationship with her.

¶13

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the accused/applicant is innocent and has been roped in a false case. He also submits that initially statement of the prosecutrix was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. before the learned JMFC on 30.12.2022

¶14

where she did not made any allegation against the applicant. However, on 02.01.2023 again her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded in which she made allegation against the applicant therefore, there is discrepancy in the statement of the prosecutrix. He also submits that there is inordinate delay of 10 days in lodging of FIR. He further submits that earlier similar nature of allegation was made by the the prosecutrix against another person namely Umesh Dhurv for which complaint was also registered however, when case of the accused was held before the Additional Sessions Judge, FTC, Special Court, Raipur in Special Criminal Case No.191/2021 the prosecutrix turned hostile and acquittal was granted to the accused. He also submits that at present prosecutrix left her house and again missing report has been lodged by his father. Therefore, no case as alleged is made out against the applicant. He also submits that the applicant is aged about 19 years and he is languishing in since since 05.01.2023 and final conclusion of the trial is likely to take considerable period, therefore, the applicant may be released on bail.

¶15

4. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the bail application. On 24.04.2023, father of the prosecutrix raised strong objection in granting bail to the applicant through V.C. from DLSA, Raipur.

¶16

5. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly, considering the statements of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., without commenting on merits of the case, I deem it appropriate to release the applicant on bail.

¶17

6. Accordingly, the application is allowed and it is directed that on applicant’s 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,

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

¶22

Sd/-

¶23

(Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge

¶24

Ajay

Nohar Alias Bhikham Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nohar Alias Bhikham Sahu 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

Vijay Bharti ( Wrongly Mentioned as 235 Years ) Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

Banmali Baghel Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rajendra Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Tejram Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mohammed Irfan @ Raja Vs State of Chhattisgarh

D. Prabhakar Rao Vs State of Chhattisgarh