Allowed

Pomeshwar Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC17 Apr 2024CRA/677/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Chhattisgarh High Court allowed the appellant's appeal against the rejection of bail under Section 14-A(2) of the PoA Act, setting aside the impugned order and granting regular bail with conditions to appear in court and not tamper with witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Appellant granted regular bail on executing a personal bond of ₹ 25,000/- with one surety of the same value, subject to conditions to appear in court and not tamper with witnesses.

Pomeshwar Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Caste Atrocities | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

CRA No. 677 of 2024

¶5

Pomeshwar Sahu S/o Manharan Sahu Aged About 31 Years R/o Basant Nagar, Bhanupratappur, District - Uttar Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh

¶6

------Appellant

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

State of Chhattisgarh through the Station House Officer, Police Station - Bhanupratappur, District - Uttar Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh.

¶9

------- Respondent

¶10

For Appellant : Mr. Shivendu Pandya, Advocate. For State : Mr. U.K.S. Chandel, Dy. Adv. General

¶11

Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge ORDER ON BOARD

¶12

18/04/2024

¶13

Appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short “Act of 1989”) against the rejection of application filed under Section 439 of CrPC for grant of bail as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 04/2024 registered at Police Station – Bhanupratappur, District- Uttar Bastar Kanker (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 376, 376(2)(n), 506, 450, 417 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the Act of 1989.

¶14

Case of prosecution in brief is that, victim lodged a report in the concerned police station alleging that the appellant on the pretext of marriage has committed sexual intercourse with her initially on 13.05.2017 and thereafter on many occasion till 30.11.2023. She was also threatened not to disclose their relationship to any of the person. Based on the report, aforementioned crime was registered and appellant was arrested on 07.01.2024.

¶15

Learned counsel for appellant submits that appellant has been falsely implicated in the crime, he has not committed any offence as alleged. Even if the allegation is taken on its face value it appears that the physical relationship, if any, between the two would be consensual. Age

¶16

¶17

of victim on the date of lodging of the report was 29 years and on the first date of incident she was about 22 years of age.

¶18

Learned State counsel opposes the submission of learned counsel for appellant. However, upon asking he submits that age of victim on the date of lodging of report was 29 years. He further submits that in the statement recorded under Section 164 of CrPC victim made allegation that the appellant made physical relationship with her since 2011.

¶19

Pursuant to the notice issued by this Court, victim appeared before this Court through virtual mode from DLSA, Kanker and raised objection in grant of bail to appellant.

¶20

I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶21

Taking into consideration, the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of allegation, submission of learned counsel for the parties, age of victim on the date of lodging of report, without commenting anything on merits of the case, I am inclined to allow this appeal.

¶22

Accordingly, appeal is allowed, the impugned order passed by learned Special Judge (Atrocities) dated 05.03.2024 is set aside and it is directed that appellant in connection with the crime in question (04/2024) be released on regular bail on his executing a personal bond in the sum of ₹ 25,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned arresting Officer. Appellant shall also abide by the following conditions:

¶23

a) He shall appear before the Trial Court regularly on each and every date, unless exempted from appearance.

¶24

b) He shall not, in any manner, tamper with the prosecution witnesses.

¶25

c) If he is found involved in similar offence in future, it will be open for the State to apply for cancellation of Bail.

¶26

Certified copy as per rules.

¶27

Sd/(Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge

¶28

/pwn

Pomeshwar Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pomeshwar Sahu 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

Raja Ram Netam Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

Kaliram Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Amit @ Balla Kuldeep Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rishi Agrawal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Deepak Dhamecha Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Bhupendra Patel Vs State of Chhattisgarh