Dismissed¶8

Jairam Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC15 Feb 2024MCRC/348/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular bail refused; statutory rape of minor; POCSO Act 2012 Section 6; IPC Sections 376 (2)(n), 376 (3); SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Section 3 (2)(v); minor victim aged below 15 years per school admission register; pregnancy and childbirth of minor victim; objection to bail by victim and father via DLSA Raipur virtual appearance; charge-sheet allegedly lacking material on paternity; allegation of interpolated admission register; direction to Trial Court to expedite trial; applicant in jail since 20.08.2023; Crime No. 55 of 2023 PS Amlipadar District Gariyaband; Chhattisgarh High Court Bilaspur; Justice Parth Prateem Sahu; MCRC No. 348 of 2024.

What did the court decide?

Regular bail denied (application dismissed); learned Trial Court directed to expedite the trial. ¶8

Jairam Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Regular bail denied (application dismissed); learned Trial Court directed to expedite the trial.

¶8

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant, arrested on 20.08.2023 in connection with Crime No. 55 of 2023 registered at Police Station Amlipadar, District Gariyaband, for offence punishable under Sections 376 (2)(n), 376 (3) of I.P.C., Section 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 and Section 3 (2)(v) of Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, should be enlarged on regular bail under Section 439 of CrPC. +1 more

¶1

Court's answer

Taking into consideration the submissions of counsel for the respective parties, the nature of allegations and the age of the victim as stated by learned State counsel based on the admission register (less than 15 years), this Court does not find the present to be a fit case to enlarge the applicant on bail.

¶7

Ratio / Principle

The bail application (MCRC No. 348 of 2024) is accordingly dismissed.

¶8

Key takeaways

In view of the applicant being in jail since 20.08.2023, the learned Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial.ratio¶10

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH (Bilaspur) | MCRC No. 348 of 2024 | decided 16/02/2024 | Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu | First regular bail application under Section 439 CrPC by Jairam Yadav (aged about 26 years), arrested on 20.08.2023 in Crime No. 55 of 2023 registered at Police Station Amlipadar, District Gariyaband (C.G.), for offences punishable under Sections 376 (2)(n), 376 (3) of I.P.C., Section 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 and Section 3 (2)(v) of Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, following a report lodged on 20.08.2023 by the father of a minor victim alleging sexual intercourse resulting in pregnancy and delivery of a child on 16.08.2023. Pursuant to notice issued by this Court, the victim and her father appeared virtually from DLSA Raipur and objected to grant of bail. State counsel placed the victim's age per the Government School admission register as less than 15 years and relied on her Section 161 Cr.P.C statement and Trial Court evidence naming the applicant; applicant's counsel argued false implication, inordinate delay in lodging the report, absence in the filed charge-sheet of any material showing him to be the biological father, and prima facie interpolation of the admission register. Considering the submissions, nature of allegations and the victim's stated age, the Court held it 'not a fit case to enlarge the applicant on bail' and dismissed the application; on counsel's request, directed the learned Trial Court to expedite the trial (applicant in jail since 20.08.2023).

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

MCRC No. 348 of 2024

¶5

Jairam Yadav S/o Ful Singh Yadav Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Kuhimal, Police Station Amlipadar, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh.

¶6

---- Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Amlipadar District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh.

¶9

---- Non-Applicant

¶10

For Applicant	: Mr. Md. Afroz Athar, Advocate
	(appeared through V.C.)
For State	: Ms. Smriti Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer

¶11

Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board

¶12

16/02/2024

¶13

Applicant has filed this first bail application under Section 439 of CrPC for grant of regular bail as he was arrested in connection with Crime No. 55 of 2023 registered at Police Station Amlipadar, District – Gariyaband (C.G.) for offence punishable under Section 376 (2)(n), 376 (3) of I.P.C., Section 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 & Section 3 (2)(v) of Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

¶14

Case of the prosecution is that, on 20.08.2023 father of victim lodged report stating that applicant committed sexual intercourse with her minor child due to which she became pregnant and also gave birth to a child on 16.08.2023. Based on the report, aforementioned crime was registered and applicant was arrested on 20.08.2023.

¶15

¶16

Pursuant to notice issued by this Court, victim along with her father appeared before this Court through virtual mode from DLSA Raipur and they raised objection in grant of bail to applicant.

¶17

Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the aforementioned crime, he has not committed any offence of any nature as alleged. Even if the allegations is taken to be correct, it appears that report has been lodged with inordinate delay. The charge-sheet has been filed and in the charge-sheet, there is no material to suggest that applicant is biological father of the child and therefore, no case would be made out. He further argued that to prove the age of victim to be below 18 years, prosecution has only collected admission register of Government School which prima facie appears to be interpolated and cannot be relied upon.

¶18

Learned State counsel opposes the submission made by learned counsel for applicant and submits that from the admission register, age of victim on the date of incident was less than 15 years. In the statement of victim recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C as also evidence recorded before learned Court below, victim has stated that it was applicant who committed sexual intercourse with her on many occasions on the pretext of marriage.

¶19

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents enclosed with bail application.

¶20

¶21

Taking into consideration the submission of learned counsel for the respective parties, nature of allegations, as also the age of victim as stated by learned State counsel based on the admission register to be less than 15 years, I do not find present to be a fit case to enlarge the applicant on bail.

¶22

Accordingly, the bail application is dismissed.

¶23

At this stage, learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant is in jail since 20.08.2023, hence, learned Trial Court be directed to expedite the trial.

¶24

In view of the above, learned Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial.

¶25

Sd/(Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge

¶26

Shayna

Jairam Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jairam Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vikas Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Priyanshu Chavariya Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ved Prakash Chauhan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rajendra Kumar Shriwas Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sandeep Kaushik Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Himanshu Sharma Vs State of Chhattisgarh