Atul Chouhan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

Page No.1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

MCRC No. 4090 of 2024

¶5

Atul Chouhan S/o Late Ranjeet Chouhan, Aged About 22 Years R/o Sonumuda, Sonkarpara, Near Railway Station Police Station Jutmil, Raigarh, Tahsil And District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

¶6

---- Applicant(in jail)

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station City Kotwali, District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

¶9

---- Respondent

¶10

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------For Applicant : Mr.Harsh Tripathi, Advocate. For Non-applicant/State : Mr.Praveen Das, Dy. Adv. General.

¶11

S.B.:Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board

¶12

03/07/2024

¶13

This is second bail application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on behalf of the applicant for grant of regular bail to him. First bail application bearing MCRC No.1290 of 2024 was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 07.03.2024.

¶14

Applicant is in custody in connection with Crime No.854/2023 registered at Police Station City Kotwali, District-Raigarh(C.G.) for the alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 323, 376(2)(n), 509(b) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5(l) & 6 of POCSO Act.

¶15

Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the father of victim lodged report in the concerned police-station against the applicant that he committed forcible sexual intercourse with his daughter on many occasions, threatened of her life. Based on said report,

¶16

Page No.2

¶17

aforementioned crime was registered and applicant was arrested on 11.12.2023.

¶18

Learned counsel for applicant submitted that applicant has been falsely implicated in instant crime. He has not committed any offence as alleged. During investigation, police has seized the school register and mark-sheet. However, the parents of the victim has not specifically stated the date of birth of the victim and who got prepared the birth certificate, therefore, there is no specific proof that the victim was below 18 years of age on the date of incident. He further contended that the material witnesses have already been examined. From the contents of the evidence of victim, it is appearing that she was a consenting party if at all any incident happened.

¶19

Learned counsel for the State opposes submissions of learned counsel for applicant and submits that there are specific allegation against the applicant, that he under threat has committed sexual intercourse with minor girl child. Upon asking the number of listed witnesses, he submits that as per charge-sheet, there are 21 witnesses and from the documents enclosed along with application, till May, 2024 four witnesses have already been examined.

¶20

Pursuant to notice issued by this Court, father of victim appeared before this Court and raised objection in grant of bail to the applicant.

¶21

I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶22

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of case, nature of allegations, period of pre-trial detention, submission of counsel for the parties and that the material witnesses have already been examined, there is no apprehension of influencing the

¶23

Page No.3

¶24

important witnesses, without commenting anything on merits of the case, I am inclined to allow the bail application.

¶25

Accordingly, bail application is allowed and it is directed that applicant shall be released on bail, on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of trial Court concerned on the conditions that;

¶26