Allowed

Sanjay Satnami v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC26 Nov 2024MCRC/4958/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular bail application under Section 439 CrPC in a case involving alleged abduction and rape of a minor under Sections 363, 366, 376(2)(n) IPC and Sections 4 and 6 POCSO. The prosecutrix had turned hostile as PW1. The court granted bail with conditions without commenting on merits.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on personal bond Rs.25,000 with one like surety, subject to conditions.

Sanjay Satnami Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

¶1

2024:CGHC:46496

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶4

MCRC No. 4958 of 2024

¶5

Sanjay Satnami S/o Yadram Satnami Aged About 19 Years R/o Village Sakreli, Police Station Baradwar, District Sakti (C.G.) ... Applicant

¶6

... Applicant

¶7

versus

¶8

State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Of Police Station Pusore, District Raigarh (C.G.) ... Respondent

¶9

(Cause title is taken from the CIS)

¶10

-------------------------------------------	-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For Applicant	: Shri NK Chatterjee and Shri YV Raman Rao, Advocates
For Respondent/State	: Shri TS Sahu, PL

¶11

Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal

¶12

Order on Board

¶13

27.11.2024

¶14

Heard on the application filed under Section 439 of the CrPC. This is the first bail application before this Court filed by the applicant for grant of regular bail.

¶15

The applicant was arrested on 16.06.2024 in connection with Crime No.59 of 2024 registered at PS- Pusore, District-Raigarh, Chhattisgarh for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376(2)(n) of the IPC, and Sections 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

¶16

Case of the prosecution in brief is that on 20.02.2024, father of prosecutrix lodged a missing report that his minor daughter was missing since

¶17

Mcrc 4958 of 2024

¶18

¶19

20.02.2024, and her whereabouts could not be traced out. Police registered offence under Section 363 of the IPC and started investigation. During investigation, prosecutrix was recovered on 16.06.2024 from her maternal uncle’s house, and after recording her statement, offence under Sections 366, 376(2)(n) of the IPC, and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act have been added. Applicant was arrested on 16.06.2024 itself, and charge-sheet has been filed.

¶20

Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that there is no cogent evidence on record that prosecutrix was minor on the date of incident. She was in love affair with the applicant, and eloped with him on her own will to Jammu, to earn their livelihood, and she engaged in physical relation with him, without any objection. When the prosecutrix knew that her father lodged a missing report, she returned back to her house, and under pressure of her parents, made statement against the applicant. He would also submit that before the trial Court, prosecutrix has been examined as PW1 in which she completely turned hostile, and not supported the case of prosecution. Applicant is in jail since 16.06.2024 and final adjudication of the case will take its own time. Hence, the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

¶21

On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application, and would submit that from the material collected during the investigation, prosecutrix appears to be minor, and she was subjected to sexual intercourse by the applicant. Hence the applicant is not entitled for bail.

¶22

Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, also considering the nature of allegations, material collected by the prosecution

¶23

Mcrc 4958 of 2024

¶24

¶25

during investigation, further that prosecutrix has been examined as PW1, in which she has not supported the prosecution case, and completely turned hostile, applicant is in jail since 16.06.2024, and final adjudication of the case would take some time, without commenting anything on merits of the case, I am inclined to release the applicant on bail.

¶26

Accordingly, the bail application filed by the applicant- Sanjay Satnami,

¶27

s/o Yadram Satnami, is allowed and he shall be released on bail on his executing a personal bond in sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety of the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court. Applicant shall also abide by the following conditions:

¶28

i. that the applicant 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 from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any Police Officer;

¶29

ii. that the applicant shall not act, in any manner, which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial.

¶30

iii. that the applicant shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to him by the concerned trial Court till disposal of the trial unless exempted.

¶31

Certified copy as per rules.

¶32

Sd/-

¶33

(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) JUDGE

¶34

padma

Sanjay Satnami v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Satnami 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

Kishor Banjare Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Karan Soni Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ravishankar Khairwar, Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Vishal Tamrakar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Deepak Kumar Ambade Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

Jitendra Dhruv Vs the State of Chhattisgarh