Dismissed¶¶24

Sandeep Kumar Agrawal v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC9 Apr 2024MCRCA/219/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail; Section 438 Cr.P.C.; IPC Sections 354, 354(a); POCSO Act Sections 8, 10 and 12; Crime No. 62/2024 PS Katghora Distt. Korba; tribal girls hostel; primary school teacher / Head Master; minor Class 5 victims; departmental inquiry conviction; parents of victims no objection; bail rejected; Chhattisgarh High Court Bilaspur; MCRCA 219/2024; Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi; order dated 10-4-2024.

What did the court decide?

Having regard to the fact that the applicant is a teacher of the primary school where both minor girls study in Class 5, that he has been held guilty in the departmental inquiry, and considering the gravity of the offence, the Court was not inclined to grant anticipatory bail. ¶¶23

Sandeep Kumar Agrawal Vs State of… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

MCRCA No. 219 of 2024

¶5

Sandeep Kumar Agrawal S/o Omprakash Agrawal Aged About 38 Years Caste Agrawal, R/o Village Hardibazar, Dipka Road, P.S. Hardibazar, District : Korba, CG

¶6

---- Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Katghora, Civil And Revenue, District : Korba, CG

¶9

---- Respondent

¶10

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Applicant : Mr. Bharatlal Sahu, Adv. For non-applicant/State : Ms. Pagya Pandey, PL. For objector : Ms. Iturani Mukharjee, Adv. Father of one victim and mother of one victim are also present. Smt. Pushpalata Manhar, Superintendent of Primary Level Tribal Girls Hostel, Gharipakhna, Distt. Korba is also present.

¶11

Hon'ble Shri Justice N aresh K umar Chandravanshi

¶12

Order on Board

¶13

10-4-2024

¶14

1 . The applicant has preferred this first bail application under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail as he apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime No. 62/2024 registered at Police Station Katghora, Distt. Korba (CG) for the offence punishable under Section 354, 354(a) of IPC and Section 8, 10 and 12 of the POCSO Act.

¶15

Brief facts of the case are that applicant was posted as Head Master at Primary Ashram Shala, Gharipakhna, Distt. Korba. It is alleged that on 8-2-2024, the Superintendent of Tribal Girls Hostel, Gharipakhna made written complaint against applicant alleging therein that, on 16-12-2023, two minor girls studying in Class 5 in aforesaid school, complained her that, on 15-12-2023, applicant bad touched them. They also complained

¶16

¶17

that, applicant used to ask them that whether their menstrual is going on. He also used to show them obscene pictures on mobile. He also used to ask them to taste urine of boys and girls. It is also alleged that, applicant used to say them to go to picnic and whoever will not go to picnic, their 10 marks shall be cut down and whoever will go to picnic, then all will take bath along in pond typing rope. Based on above facts, present FIR under Section 354, 354(a) of IPC and Section 8, 10 and 12 of the POCSO Act was registered against applicant.

¶18

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the Superintendent of Tribal Girls Hostel, Gharipakhna, as she did not attend her duties in time and many time, she remained absent from her duty, therefore, applicant had made remarks in register against the Hostel Superintendent, & due to such remark of applicant, salary for the month of September, 2023 was not paid to the complainant. The applicant is working since last 18 years, but no such allegation has been leveled again him and it is first time, any offence is registered against the applicant.

¶19

Per contra, learned State counsel submits that applicant is a teacher and allegations leveled against him is not expected from him at all. It is also submitted that the applicant has been held guilty in the department inquiry, therefore, anticipatory bail may not be granted to the applicant.

¶20

¶21

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶22

Father of one victim and mother of one victim are also present before this Court. They submit that they have no objection with regard to instant application for grant of anticipatory bail.

¶23

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, having regard to the fact that, the applicant is a teacher of primary school where both the minor girls are studying in Class 5, further considering the fact that applicant has been held guilty in the departmental inquiry, and considering the gravity of the offence, I do not feel inclined to allow the application for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant.

¶24

Accordingly, instant application is rejected.

¶25

Sd/-

¶26

(Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi)

¶27

JUDGE

¶28

Pathak

Sandeep Kumar Agrawal v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandeep Kumar Agrawal v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Vs Hemant Patel

Radhika Prasad Vs Dinesh Kumar

Chetan Prasad Dewangan Vs Ramlal Dewangan

Firoz Khan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

M/S Chhattisgarh State Power Transmission Company Limited Vs Union of India

Khileshwar Sinha @ Jeetu Sinha Vs Rehana Khan @ Aasu Arya