Allowed

Suraj Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC27 Jul 2023MCRC/3558/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This short order concerns a bail application filed by an accused in custody since January 4, 2023, charged with offences under IPC and the POCSO Act. The High Court granted bail after noting the prosecutrix's statement indicating no action against the applicant.

What did the court decide?

The applicant was released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with one surety for the like sum.

Suraj Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Chhattisgarh HC (2023)

¶1

NAFR

¶2

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶3

MCRC No. 3558 of 2023

¶4

Suraj Yadav S/o Shri Raju Yadav Aged About 24 Years R/o Village Dhodgipara, Mujgahan, Police Station- Mujgahan, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶5

--- Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer, Police Station Mujgahan, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶8

--- Respondent.

¶9

CAUSE TITLE TAKEN FROM CIS PERIPHERY

¶10

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------For Applicant : Ms. Laxmeen Kashyap, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Krishna Kumar Dixit, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Roshan Dubey, PL.

¶11

Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Order On Board

¶12

27.07.2023

¶13

The accused/applicant is in custody since 04.01.2023 in connection with Crime No.03/2023 registered at Police Station – Mujgahan, District – Raipur, C.G. for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376(2)(N) of IPC 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.

¶14

Earlier the first bail application i.e. MCRC No.1956/2023 which was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 04.05.2023.

¶15

Case of the prosecution, in nutshell is that, on 03.01.2023 an FIR has been lodged by the complainant alleging in it that in the month of August – 2022, the present applicant allured the prosecutrix and got married in the temple and they both were living happily as a husband

¶16

and wife. Thereafter, a social meeting has been called in which both the applicant and prosecutrix were out casted from the community. On 07.02.2023, when the applicant left the prosecutrix alone at Mujgahan Road, thereafter, the prosecutrix returned to her matrimonial house and lodged the FIR. Based on such allegations, the aforesaid offences have been registered against the present applicant.

¶17

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the accused/applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. It is next submitted that both the prosecutrix and applicant were having love relation even both got married in temple. It is next argued that the prosecutrix is a major girl and parents of the prosecutrix did not raise any objection. She would further submits that the prosecutrix has been examined before the Court below. It is next submitted that the applicant is in jail since, 04.01.2023, 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.

¶18

Learned State counsel opposes the prayer for bail.

¶19

Heard submission of learned counsel for the parties and also considering the back drop of the case, nature of accusation, the pretrial detention period of the applicant, particularly considering the statement of the prosecutrix in which she has categorically stated that the present applicant is her husband and she does not want any action against him, without further commenting on merit, I am inclined to grant bail to the applicant.

¶20

Accordingly, the application is allowed and it is directed that on

¶21

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

¶22

(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,

¶23

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

¶24

¶25

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

¶26

Sd/-

¶27

(Deepak Kumar Tiwari)

¶28

Judge

¶29

yasmin

Suraj Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suraj 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

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

Shubham Taneja Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Priyanka Mattani Verma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mahendra Kumar Baghel Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Prahlad Bagh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Anshul Soni Vs State of Chhattisgarh