High CourtsSingle Bench

Dilip Baghel vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh High Court · Decided on 3 April 2018 · Citation: (2018) 04 CHH CK 0006

HON’BLE JUDGES
ARVIND SINGH CHANDEL, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 439 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 363, 366A, 376, 34 · Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 — Section 12 · Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 — Section 84, 67 · Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — Section 4, 16, 17
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
M.Cr.C. No.951 of 2018
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

21 paragraphs · 442 words
1.

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

arrested in connection with Crime No.392 of 2017 registered at Police Station Takhatpur, District Bilaspur for offence punishable under Sections 363,

366A and 376/34 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 84 and 67 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act and Sections 4, 16 and 17

of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act.

2.

Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that a written complaint was submitted before Police Station Takhatpur by the prosecutrix, aged about 12 years

alleging that on 23.9.2017 at about 11:30 p.m., she went out of home to attend the call of nature. At that time, the Applicant came there, gagged her

mouth and took her away with him. Co-accused Ranjit was already present there on a motorcycle. Both of the accused forcibly took her away on the

motorcycle towards Nagoi. On the way, co-accused Ranjit left them and went away. Thereafter, the Applicant committed rape with her. When father

and brother of the prosecutrix reached there, the Applicant ran away from there.

3.

Learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant submits that the Applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. In her Court statement, the

prosecutrix (PW1) has not supported the case of the prosecution and she has been declared hostile. Similarly, her brother Chaituram (PW2) has also

not supported the case of the prosecution and he has also been declared hostile. Charge-sheet has been filed. The Applicant is in custody since

13.10.2017. Trial will take a long time. Therefore, he may be released on bail.

4.

Learned Counsel appearing for the State opposes the bail application.

5.

I have heard Learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the entire case diary with due care.

6.

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly, the facts that the prosecutrix and her brother have not supported the

case of the prosecution and they have been declared hostile, charge-sheet has been filed against the Applicant, he is in jail since 13.10.2017 and trial is

likely to take some time, without further commenting on merits of the case, I am inclined to enlarge the Applicant on bail.

7.

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

8.

It is directed that the Applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one solvent surety of the like

sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Trial Court for his appearance before the said Court as and when directed.