Allowed

Suresh Bhaina v. the State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC17 Apr 2023MCRC/540/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-paragraph order by the High Court of Chhattisgarh grants bail to the applicant in a POCSO case involving alleged abduction and sexual exploitation of a minor. The court noted the marginal age of the victim at the time and a love-affair context, allowing bail with a personal bond and one surety of Rs. 50,000/- each.

What did the court decide?

Application under Section 439 CrPC allowed; applicant released on bail upon executing a personal bond with one surety of Rs. 50,000/- each.

Suresh Bhaina Vs the State of Chhattisgarh — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Chhattisgarh HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

MCRC No. 540 of 2023

¶5

Suresh Bhaina S/o Mangal Singh Bhaina Aged About 21 Years R/o Village Rumga Chowki, Kotmikala, P.S. Pendra District Gourela Pendra Marwahi (C.G.)

¶6

---- Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State Of Chhattisgarh P.S. Pendra, District Gourela Pendra Marwahi (C.G.)

¶9

---- Respondent

¶10

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Applicant : Mr. Hemant Kumar Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Amit Kumar Verma, Panel Lawyer ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

¶11

Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K. Chandravanshi Order On Board

¶12

17.4.2023

¶13

1 . This is first bail application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail to the applicant, who has been arrested on 18.8.2022 in connection with Crime No.320/2022 registered at Police Station Pendra, Distt. Gourela Pendra Marwahi (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366 & 376 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 4 & 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

¶14

2. Allegation against the applicant is that on 02.8.2022, he abducted minor prosecutrix/victim, who was below the age of 18 years at the time of the incident, took her to Manendragarh and stayed there about 15 days and in between he sexually exploited her on the pretext of marriage.

¶15

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He would submit that it is a case of love affair and consensual relationship between both the parties, hence, it is not a case of rape or abduction. It is further submitted that on the date of incident, the prosecutrix/victim was more than 18 years of age, thus she was an adult. It is next submitted that the applicant is in jail since

¶16

¶17

18.8.2022, charge sheet has already been filed, statement of the victim and her father has been recorded before the trial Court which also does not completely support the case of the prosecution, hence, the applicant may be granted bail.

¶18

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the statement of learned counsel for the applicant.

¶19

5. On 06.02.2023, victim and her father appeared before the Court, wherein the victim has raised her objection with regard to grant of bail to the applicant, however her father has not objected the bail application filed by the applicant.

¶20

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the case diary and material available on record. 7. Considering facts and circumstances of the case, particularly considering the alleged marginal age of the victim at the time of the incident and further it is a case of love affair between both the parties, the applicant is in jail since 18.8.2022, I feel inclined to grant bail to the applicant. Therefore, the application under Section 439 of the CrPC is allowed. It is directed that in the event of the applicant executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety of the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court for his appearance before the concerned Court as and when directed by the said court, he be released on bail.

¶21

Certified copy as per rules.

¶22

Sd/(N.K. Chandravanshi) JUDGE

¶23

Bini

Suresh Bhaina v. the State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh Bhaina v. the 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

Sanju Nihal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Payal Manikpuri Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ditektar Patre Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shankar Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Kamaluram @ Motu Kashyap Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shekhar Ratre Vs State of Chhattisgarh