Pawan Sinha Vs State of Chhattisgarh

For Applicant(s) : Mr. Vivek Sharma, Advocate For Non-Applicant(s) : Ms. Mukta Tripathi, Panel Lawyer For Objector : Mr. Vaibhav A. Goverdhan, Advocate

¶12

SB: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge

¶13

ORDER ON BOARD

¶14

02/12/2024

¶15

This is the second bail application filed by the applicant under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 63/2024 registered at Police Station – Than Khamhariya, District – Bemetara, Chhattisgarh for the offences punishable under Sections 386, 509 (B), 411/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Section 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. 2012.

¶16

Case of prosecution is that, the applicant under the threat of making viral of the photographs of the minor victim extorted money as also, the gold ornaments. After sometime, complaint was lodged and the applicant was arrested.

¶17

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that this second bail application is filed on the ground of delay in trial. He also submits that

¶18

SHUBHAM DEY

¶19

Digitally signed by SHUBHAM DEY

¶20

2 / 3

¶21

after rejection of the first bail application, victim as well as her father (complainant) have been examined before the learned Trial Court who are the key witness to the incident and allegation leveled against the applicant. There are as may as 17 witnesses and till November, 2024 only 03 witnesses have been examined. Trial may take sometime. Applicant is in jail since, 08.04.2024, hence, he may be enlarged on bail.

¶22

On the other hand, learned State counsel vehemently opposes the submission made by learned counsel for the applicant and would submit that the first bail application was dismissed on merits. She also contended that the allegation against the applicant is of threatening the minor girl and extorting money as well as gold ornaments. There is seizure of gold ornaments from the possession of the applicant, which has been identified by the complainant and his wife. Therefore, there is prima facie case against the applicant and he is not entitled for bail.

¶23

Learned counsel for the objector also raised an objection in grant of bail to the applicant and would submit that when the first bail application is already dismissed on merits, unless and until, change of circumstances are shown, second bail application could not be considered. He also contended that there are 06 witnesses of the family of the complainant and only 04 have been examined before the learned Trial Court. There are chances of tampering or influencing the witnesses of the family who are remaining to be examined.

¶24

I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties.

¶25

Taking into consideration, facts and circumstances of the case, nature of allegations, submission of learned counsel for the respective parties and further considering that the victim (minor girl) as well as her father (complainant) have been examined along with Neetu Singhaniya and Payal Singhaniya (sisters-in-law of victim), age of the applicant, period of pre-trial detention, trial may take sometime, without commenting anything

¶26

3 / 3

¶27

on merits of the case, I am inclined to allow this application for grant of bail.

¶28

Accordingly, the bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is allowed and it is directed that applicant shall be released on bail upon 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:

¶29

(a) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶30

(b) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

¶31

(c) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure her presence, proclamation under Section 84 of BNSS. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the courton the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

¶32

(d) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 351 of BNSS. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶33

Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Certified copy as per rules.

¶34

Sd/(Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge

¶35

Dey

Pawan Sinha v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pawan Sinha 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

Bhagwat Vs Rohit Kumar

Hari Narayan Kosle Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Vijay Kumar Ratre Vs Shayam Ratan Ratre

Pt. Ravi Shnker Shukla Vs Regional Director and Anr.

Kailash Mahant Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Jageshwar Singh Deewan Vs State of Chhattisgarh