Allowed

Arif v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC11 Apr 2023MCRC/798/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed three bail applications filed by accused persons implicated in a POCSO case involving abduction and sexual exploitation of a minor. The court noted the applicants were named only during the supplementary victim statement, the charge-sheet was filed, and the victim's father consented to bail.

What did the court decide?

All three bail applications allowed; accused must execute a personal bond for Rs. 25,000/- with one surety in the like sum.

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

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

M.Cr.C. No. 798 of 2023

¶5

Arif, S/o Ayub, aged about 26 years, R/o Village Kanakpur, PS : Ramanujganj, District Balrampur – Ramanujganj (C.G.)

¶6

---- Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Chhattisgarh, Through Police Station : Ramanujganj, District – Balrampur – Ramanujganj (C.G.)

¶9

----Respondent

¶10

M.Cr.C. No. 806 of 2023

¶11

Mohammed Asgar Ali, S/o Mohammed Ali, aged about 36 years, R/o Village – Kanakpur, Police Station Ramanujganj, District Balrampur – Ramanujganj (C.G.)

¶12

---- Applicant

¶13

Versus

¶14

State of Chhattisgarh, Through Police Station – Ramanujganj, District Balrampur – Ramanujganj, (C.G.)

¶15

----Non-applicant

¶16

M.Cr.C. No. 1111 of 2023

¶17

Mohd. Yehtaram @ Pappu, S/o Late Mahmood Julaha, aged about 27 years, R/o Village – Kanakpur, P.S. - Ramanujganj, District Balrampur – Ramanujganj (C.G.)

¶18

---- Applicant

¶19

Versus

¶20

State of Chhattisgarh, Through – Station House Officer, Police Station – Ramanujganj Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.)

¶21

----Non-applicant

¶22

¶23

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Applicant : Mr. Palash Agrawal, Advocate in M.Cr.C. No. 798 of 2023
For Applicant : Mr. Amarnath Pandey & Mr. A.K. Yadav, Advocates in M.Cr.C. No. 806 of 2023
For Applicant : Mr. A.N. Pandey, Advocate in M.Cr.C. No. 1111 of 2023
For Non-applicant : Ms. Shubha Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

¶24

Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.K. Chandravanshi

¶25

Order On Board

¶26

11-04-2023

¶27

Since all the bail applications arise out of a same Crime No. 347 of 2022 and same police station, therefore, they are being heard analogously and decided by this Common Order.

¶28

The accused/applicants have preferred these bail applications under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for releasing them on regular bail in connection with Crime No. 347 of 2022 registered at Police Station Ramanujganj, District Balrampur - Ramanujganj (C.G.) for commission of offence punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376 (2)(n), 323, 342, 354 (B),376(3), 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC and Sections 4, 4(2), 6, 8, 17 & 21 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (henceforth “POCSO”).

¶29

Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 20.10.2022 main accused Ehsaan abducted the minor victim/prosecutrix, who was below the age of 16 years at the relevant time, and took her to village Ranka and subsequently he took her to Dharmavaram (Andhra Pradesh) where he sexually exploited her by keeping her in a rented house, thereafter, she was recovered from the possession of main accused Ehsaan from Railway Station Nagpur. It is also a case of the prosecution that when minor prosecutrix was residing at Dharmavaram (Andhra Pradesh), then applicant – Mohd. Asgar Ali

¶30

¶31

talked with her in the instagram and he suggested her to do as per the advice of main accused – Ehsaan and also threatened her and further other two applicants namely Arif & Mohd. Yehtaram @ Pappu were also tried to disrobe her with an intention to sexually exploit her and thereby committed the aforesaid offences.

¶32

Learned counsels appearing for the applicants would submit that applicants are innocent persons and have been falsely implicated in the alleged crime. It is further submitted that after recovery of victim/prosecutrix, when her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded first time, then she had not named applicants - Mohd. Yehtaram @ Pappu, Mohd. Arif Ansari and Mohd. Asgar Ali, but subsequently after about one month of her recovery, when her supplementary statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 13.12.2022, then only she implicated the present applicants namely Mohd. Yehtaram @ Pappu, Mohd. Arif Ansari and Mohd. Asgar Ali. It is further submitted that applicants are languishing in jail since December, 2022; charge-sheet has already been filed and conclusion of the trial is likely to take considerable time, hence, the applicants may be released on bail.

¶33

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

¶34

Today, victim/prosecutrix and her father appeared before this Court through Video Conferencing from District Legal Service Authority, Balrampur. They have submitted no objection to grant bail to the applicants.

¶35

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary as well as material available on record.

¶36

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, having regard to the facts of the case, particularly, considering the fact that all three present applicants were named later on by the victim/prosecution in

¶37

¶38

her supplementary statement recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. on 13.12.2022 and further considering the fact that the applicants are in custody since long; charge-sheet has already been filed, I am inclined to release the applicants on bail. Accordingly, all the three bail applications are allowed.

¶39

Accused/applicants are directed to be released on bail on each of them executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court. They are directed to appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to them by the said Court.

¶40

Certified copy, as per rules.

¶41

Sd/-

¶42

(N.K.Chandravanshi) Judge

¶43

Amit/

¶44

Arif v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arif 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

Vijay Kumar Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rammurar Padwal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Vinod Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mohammed Asgar Ali Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mohd. Yehtaram @ Pappu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Niyazuddin @ Vicky Vs State of Chhattisgarh