Allowed

Lakshmi Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC8 Sept 2023MCRCA/690/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order grants anticipatory bail to the applicant in a POCSO case involving alleged outraging of modesty and criminal intimidation, despite a delayed FIR, by releasing her on a personal bond.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted by personal bond of Rs. 50,000 subject to conditions against influencing witnesses and remaining available for interrogation.

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

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

M.Cr.C.(A) No. 690 of 2023

¶5

Lakshmi Yadav, D/o Baldau Ram Yadav, aged about 34 years, R/o Kripal Nagar, Kohka, House No. 73 G, Bhilai, District- Durg (C.G.) (some details are not mentioned in the order-sheet)

¶6

---- Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Chhattisgarh, Through- Station House Officer, Police Station – Supela, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.)

¶9

---- Non-applicant

¶10

For Applicant : Mr. H.A.P.S. Bhatia, Advocate For Non-Applicant/State : Mr. Sushil Sahu, Panel Lawyer

¶11

Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board

¶12

08.09.2023

¶13

The instant is the first application for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant. She is apprehending her arrest in connection with Crime No. 318/2023 registered at Police Station Supela, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.) for an offence punishable under Sections 294, 506, 323, 354 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 8 & 12 of POCSO Act.

¶14

As per prosecution story, on 15.04.2023 F.I.R. was lodged by the victim to the effect that on 18.12.2018 when the victim was staying in the house of main accused namely Sukhwant Singh, the said accused tried to outrage her modesty. It is further alleged that the present applicant was staying alongwith victim and she also harassed her and committed marpeet. On such report, the police registered offence as stated above as the victim was below 18 years of age at the time of incident.

¶15

Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the incident took place on 18.12.2018, whereas the F.I.R. was lodged on 15.04.2023. He would further submit that the allegations have been made against the main accused, who has been enlarged on regular bail by the coordinate bench of this Court vide order dated 23.08.2023 in M.Cr.C. No. 5081/2023. He would further submit that there are no allegations with regard to outraging modesty

¶16

¶17

against the present applicant, therefore, she may be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

¶18

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

¶19

I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the documents and the case diary.

¶20

On 30.06.2023, the victim appeared alongwith her sister through video conferencing and raised serious objection for grant of bail to the applicant.

¶21

Taking into consideration the fact that the F.I.R. was lodged on 15.04.2023, whereas the date of incident narrated in the F.I.R. was 18.12.2018; there is no explanation with regard to delay in lodging the F.I.R., further taking into consideration that there is no allegation against the present applicant with regard to outraging modesty and the main accused has already been enlarged on regular bail by the coordinate bench of this Court, I am inclined to extend the benefit of Section 438 of Cr.P.C. to the present applicant. Accordingly, the application is allowed

¶22

It is directed that in the event of the arrest of the applicant in connection with the crime in question, she shall be released on anticipatory bail by the officer arresting her on her executing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer. The applicant shall also abide by the

¶23

following conditions:-

¶24

i. She shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such fact to the Court or Investigating Officer, as the case may be.

¶25

ii. She shall not act in any manner that will be prejudicial to a fair and expeditious trial, and

¶26

iii. She shall make herself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required.

¶27

iv. She shall not involve herself in any offence of a similar nature in the future.

¶28

¶29

The observations made in the course of this order are only for considering the case of the applicant on the application for grant of anticipatory bail. The concerned trial Court shall not be influenced or bound by any of the observations made hereinabove.

¶30

Sd/-

¶31

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶32

vatti

Lakshmi Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lakshmi Yadav 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

M/S Gurushree Buildcon Private Limited Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1 (1)

M/S Gurushree Industries Private Limited, Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

M/S Gurushree Minerals Private Limited Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

Laxman Prasad Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ashok Kumar Setthi @ Avinash Setthi Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Vimal Jain Vs State of Chhattisgarh