Allowed

Arjun Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC21 Jun 2023MCRC/2520/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application filed under Sections 376 IPC and POCSO Act alleging rape and sexual exploitation of a minor, the High Court granted bail to the applicant on the specific ground that the prosecutrix and her father appeared and raised no objection to the grant of bail.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; accused released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties for the like sum and complying with the listed conditions.

Arjun Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Caste Atrocities | Chhattisgarh HC (2023)

¶1

NAFR

¶2

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶3

MCRC No. 2520 of 2023

¶4

Arjun Yadav S/o Satruhan Yadav Aged About 21 Years Village - Chanderi, Thana - Simga, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh

¶5

--- Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station House Officer - Thana - Simga, District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh

¶8

--- Respondent.

¶9

CAUSE TITLE TAKEN FROM CIS PERIPHERY

¶10

For Applicant : Mr. Deepak Kumar Jain, Adv. For Respondent/State : Mr. Anil Tripathi, PL.

¶11

Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari

¶12

Order On Board

¶13

21.06.2023

¶14

The accused/applicant is in custody since 31.12.2022 in connection with Crime No.371/2012 registered at Police Station - Simga, District – Baloda Bazar – Bhatapara, for the offence punishable under Sections 376, 323, 506/34 of IPC, Section 3(1)(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Sections 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short “the POCSO Act”), has filed this application for grant of bail.

¶15

2. Case of the prosecution, in nutshell is that, the applicant has abducted the minor prosecutrix and also sexually exploited her on false pretext of marriage. Based on such allegations, the aforesaid offences have been registered against the present applicant.

¶16

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the accused/applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. He further submits that the FIR has been lodged belatedly, and further that the true age of the prosecutrix has not been recorded. It is next submitted that the prosecutrix is a consenting party as she accompanied with the present applicant at her own will and they were having love affair. It is further argued that the medical evidence also does not supports the case of the prosecution. It is lastly submitted that the applicant is behind the bar since 31.12.2022, the trial will likely to take considerable period, therefore, if he may be set at liberty by granting bail, he would abide by all terms and conditions imposed on him while granting bail.

¶17

4. Learned State counsel opposes the prayer for bail. The prosecutrix has appeared before this Court along with her father through concerned DLSA and they did not raised any objection in granting bail to the applicant.

¶18

5. Heard submission of learned counsel for the parties and also considering the back drop of the case, the pre-trial detention period of the applicant, particularly considering that the prosecutrix has appeared along with her father and she did not raised objection in granting bail to the applicant, without further commenting on merit, I am inclined to grant bail to the applicant.

¶19

Accordingly, the application is allowed and it is directed that on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two

¶20

sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court, he shall be released on bail on the following conditions:-

¶21

(a) 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,

¶22

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

¶23

¶24

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

¶25

Sd/-

¶26

(Deepak Kumar Tiwari)

¶27

yasmin

¶28

Judge

Arjun Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arjun Yadav 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

Tejram Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Nohar Alias Bhikham Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mohammed Irfan @ Raja Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Bunty Shaha Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mohammad Sameer Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Avinash Giri Goswami Vs State of Chhattisgarh