Allowed

Ved Vyas Panda v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC3 Aug 2023MCRC/4571/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the second bail application of an accused involved in a POCSO case and alleged crime leading to the victim's suicide. Relying on the coordinate bench's bail order for the co-accused and discrepancies regarding the victim's birth date, the court granted interim relief without adjudicating merits.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted on personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with one surety in like sum to the satisfaction of the trial court.

Ved Vyas Panda Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Matrimonial and Divorce | Chhattisgarh HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR M.Cr.C No. 4571 of 2023

¶4

Ved Vyas Panda S/o. Lambodar Pnada, Aged About 19 Years R/oVillage- Paikin, Police Station- Baramkela, District-Raigarh. (C.G.).

¶5

---- Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Chhattisgarh, Through Station House Officer, Police StationBaramkela, District- Raigarh (C.G.).

¶8

--- Respondent

¶9

For Applicant : Mr. Roop Naik, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Anurag Verma, PL.

¶10

Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel Order o n Board

¶11

0 3 / 0 8 /2023

¶12

This is Second Bail application of applicant filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. First application was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 13.05.2022 in M.Cr.C No.2669/2023 with liberty to repeat prayer after examination of complainant.

¶13

It is informed by State Counsel that notice issued to complainant/victim/prosecutrix is served upon father of victim (deceased). In spite of service of notice, no one is appeared on behalf of victim (deceased).

¶14

Applicant is in jail since 12.06.2021 in connection with Crime No.184/2021 registered at PS -Baramkela, District -Raigarh, (C.G.), for commission of offence punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376-A, 306 34 of IPC and Section 4 & 6 of POCSO Act.

¶15

Case of prosecution, in brief, is that on 24.03.2021 victim (deceased) committed suicide by hanging herself in her bedroom. Prior to three months from incident, without consent of her parents deceased got married with present applicant and at that time she was minor aged about

¶16

¶17

17 years 10 months and 19 days. It is alleged that after marriage husband of deceased assaulted her and her mother-in-law also used to harass her by the name of caste. Based on report lodged by complainant (father of deceased), FIR was registered against the applicant and his mother (Smt Kunti Panda) and they were arrested.

¶18

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the crime, he has not committed any offence as alleged against him. Deceased was wife of applicant and their marriage was solemnized with their mutual consent. In the entry of Dakhil Kharij Panji DOB of deceased is mentioned as 05.05.2003. By referring to Court statement of father of deceased, he contended that father of deceased has not produced any document in respect of DOB of deceased at the time of making entry in Dakhil Kharij Panji. Hence, prima facie it appears that prosecution failed to establish that at the time of marriage with applicant, deceased was below 18 years of age.

¶19

He further contended that there is no any other evidence placed on record to show that due to harassment and cruelty by this applicant, deceased committed suicide. In his Court statement, father of deceased himself admitted the fact that there was some dispute between applicant and deceased as applicant used to outside of the house for his livelihood. Co-accused Smt Kunti Panda (mother of applicant) has been granted bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 12.01.2022 in M.Cr.C No.9784/2021. Applicant is jail since 12.06.2021, hence, he may be released on bail.

¶20

On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application of applicant.

¶21

Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.

¶22

¶23

Considering entire facts and circumstances of case, nature of allegations, submission of counsel for the respective parties, evidence/material available on record, particularly Court statement of father of deceased, further considering the fact that co-accused has been granted bail by coordinate Bench of this Court, detention period of applicant, without commenting anything on other merits of the case, I am inclined to allow bail application.

¶24

Accordingly, the bail application filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. is allowed. It is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court, for his appearance as and when directed.

¶25

Sd/( Arvind Singh Chandel) Judge

¶26

J/-

Ved Vyas Panda v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ved Vyas Panda 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

Gaurav Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dinesh Kumar Pandey Vs Manoj Kumar Pingua (I. a. S.)

Rishi Kumar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Vinod Kumar Gupta Vs Chandermati

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Sukhram

Vinod Kumar Gupta Vs Thumri Bai