High CourtsSingle Bench

Anil Kashyap vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh High Court · Decided on 23 June 2021 · Citation: (2021) 06 CHH CK 0055

HON’BLE JUDGES
Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 363, 366, 376 · Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 439 · Protection Of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — Section 6
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 2674 Of 2021
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

20 paragraphs · 413 words
1.

This is the first bail application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has

been arrested in connection with Crime No.20 of 2020, registered at Police Station - Kuakonda, District - Dantewada, Chhattisgarh for the offence

punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

2.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is in jail since 3.9.2020 and has been falsely implicated in this case. The prosecutrix

was not minor on the date of incident. The prosecutrix and her father both have no objection in grant of bail to the applicant. Hence, it is prayed that

the applicant be enlarged on bail.

3.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application and the submissions made in this respect. It is submitted that the

prosecutrix was minor on the date of incident and her consent is immaterial. Hence, no case is made out for grant of regular bail to the applicant.

4.

Complainant - Ramlal Markam and the prosecutrix are present before this virtual Court through the Help-Desk of the DLSA, Dantewada, District

Dantewada. They made a statement that they have no objection in grant of bail to the applicant.

5.

Heard counsel for both the parties and perused the case diary.

6.

According to the prosecution case, it is alleged that this applicant abducted the minor prosecutrix of age below 16 years and then by keeping her in

his custody he has exploited her sexually knowing well that she is not competent to give such consent because of which, she became pregnant then

the FIR has been lodged.

7.

Considered the submissions and the facts present in this case. Looking to the statement of no objection given by the complainant and the

prosecutrix, I feel inclined to grant regular bail to the applicant.

8.

Accordingly, the bail application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. is allowed.

9.

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 the concerned trial Court, for his appearance as and when directed. In case any default is committed by the applicant/s in appearing

before the concerned trial Court, this order granting bail shall stand cancelled automatically.