Allowed

Rahul Singh v. the State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC9 Oct 2023MCRC/6657/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this bail application under Section 439 CrPC, the High Court of Chhattisgarh granted bail to the applicant accused of POCSO and IPC offences. Relying on Supreme Court precedents regarding unproven age of the victim and procedural delays, the court allowed bail on a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with one surety.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted on execution of a personal bond for Rs. 25,000 with one surety to the satisfaction of the trial court.

Rahul Singh Vs the State of Chhattisgarh — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Chhattisgarh HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

MCRC No. 6657 of 2023

¶5

Rahul Singh S/o Late Rajendra Singh Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Premnagar Podi, Ps Podi, District Koriya (C.G.)

¶6

---- Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State Of Chhattisgarh Through SHO, PS Chirmiri, District Koriya (C.G.)

¶9

---- Respondent

¶10

For Applicant : Shri Ghanshyam Sharma, Advocate For Respondent/State : Shri Alok Nigam, GA

¶11

Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput

¶12

Order On Board

¶13

09/10/2023

¶14

The applicant has filed this second bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of regular bail as he is in custody in connection with Crime No. 203/2022 registered at police station Chirmiri, District Koriya (CG) for the offence punishable under Sections 363,366 and 376 (2)(n) IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act 2012.

¶15

The first bail application filed by the applicant was dismissed as withdrawn vide M.Cr.C. No. 10121 of 2022 dated 09.01.2023.

¶16

As per prosecution case, the applicant allured the prosecutirx who was minor, on the pretext of marriage and has developed physical relations with her.

¶17

¶18

Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the material witnesses including mother and father of the victim as well as the doctor were examined and their statements do not inspire confidence. He submits that the age of the victim had not been proved as it has come on record that her date of birth was recorded without any documentary evidence and only on the saying of the parents, the victim has stated that her date of birth has been recorded less than her actual age and that the applicant is in jail since 23.03.2022, the trial is likely to take sometime, therefore the applicant may be granted bail. He places his reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Sunil Vs. State of Haryana, Cr.A. No. 2308 of 2009 (Arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 5779 of 2009) judgment dated 04.12.2009 and also in the matter of Cr.A. No. 962 of 2022 (SLP (Criminal) No. 5326 of 2022 judgment dated 14^th July 2022 .

¶19

On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application.

¶20

Heard counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.

¶21

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the statement of the prosecution witnesses recorded so far, the detention period of the applicant, without further commenting on merits of the case, I am inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail. Accordingly, his bail application is allowed.

¶22

It is directed that in the event of applicant executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety to the satisfaction of the concerned trial court, he shall be released on bail on the following conditions:

¶23

¶24

i) He shall appear before the trial court regularly on each and every date, unless exempted from appearance.

¶25

ii) He shall not make any attempt to tamper with the prosecution witnesses.

¶26

It is made clear that if any of the conditions is violated by the applicant and brought to the notice of the trial court, the trial court is at liberty to cancel the bail granted to the applicant. It is also made clear that the State is at liberty to move an application regarding cancellation of bail of the applicant in the event of applicant involving himself in similar offence in future.

¶27

Sd/(Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge

¶28

suguna

Rahul Singh v. the State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul Singh 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Krishna Devi Agrawal (Bansal) Vs Leela Ram Soni

Ajay Kumar Sahu @ Biru Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ajay Kumar Sahu @ Biru Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Amarnath Mane Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Saddam Ansari Urf Laddu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rajkumar Vs Diken @ Dikendra Sahu