The High Court of Chhattisgarh rejected an application for anticipatory bail filed by a minor accused facing charges of rape under IPC 376 and POCSO Sections 4 and 6, citing the gravity of the offence and prima facie involvement.
The anticipatory bail application (M.Cr.C.(A) No. 471 of 2023) was rejected.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Reserved on 19-07-2023 Pronounced on 28 -07-2023
MCRCA No. 471 of 2023
---- Applicant
Versus
---- Non-applicant
For Applicant : Shri Awadh Tripathi, Advocate For State : Ms. Pushplata Khalkho, Panel Lawyer For Objector : Ms. Seema Singh, Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas C.A.V. ORDER
2
come to her house and used to say he will marry her when she will become major and was doing sexual intercourse with her. When she became major she asked him to marry but he refused and threatened her that if she pressurizes him he will commit suicide. On the basis of her complaint, FIR under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code was registered and subsequently after investigation Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act were also added.
3
committed sexual intercourse with her when she was not major, when she became major and asked him to marry her, then he has denied therefore, the FIR has been rightly lodged. The applicant has not produced the video clips before the trial Court buthe for the first time has produced video before this Court which creates doubt over the story designed by the applicant and would pray for rejection of the bail application.
Sd/(Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge
Deshmukh
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC given the gravity of the POCSO and rape allegations.
Whether the applicant’s apprehension of arrest is genuine or是基于 false implication.
Whether the prima facie involvement of the applicant warrants rejection of the bail application.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Maheshwar Tigga vs. the State of JhakhandReferred¶18
Maheshwar Tigga vs. the State of Jhakhand {Criminal Appeal No. 635 of 2020 decided on 28 September, 2020}
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Yuvraj Singh Bais
Narendra Kumar Vyas
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
