High CourtsSingle Bench

Gulshan Dewangan vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh High Court · Decided on 18 April 2019 · Citation: (2019) 04 CHH CK 0117

HON’BLE JUDGES
Sharad Kumar Gupta, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 164, 439 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 363, 366, 376(2)I · Protection Of Children From Sexual Officences Act, 2012 — Section 4, 6
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Miscellaneous Criminal Case (MCRC) No. 1673 Of 2019
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

9 paragraphs · 329 words

Sharad Kumar Gupta, J

1.

Informant Kewal Chandra Diwar absent. His notice received with this indorsement that he does not reside there.

2.

This is first bail application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. preferred by the applicant before this Court and no other bail application is pending before any other Court.

3.

Perused the case diary provided by the learned counsel for the State in connection with Crime No.252/2018 registered at Police Station- Vidhan Sabha, District- Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376(2)I of Indian Penal Code and Section 4, 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act.

4.

Case of the prosecution, in brief is that on 02.07.2018 prosecutrix was below 13 years of age. Applicant had committed sexual intercourse with her, on 02.07.2018 he took her. As per the true copy of the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 CrPC applicant had not taken her and not committed anything with her. As per the certified copy of the statement of the prosecutrix recorded by trial Court, which is the part of the bail application she turned hostile and had stated that applicant had not committed anything with her.

5.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has no criminal background, he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case, therefore, he shall be released on bail.

6.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application, however, submits that there is no criminal antecedent against the applicant in police case diary.

7.

Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, looking to the fact that there is no likelihood of the accused to abscond and tamper the evidence, it is directed that if applicant furnishes one solvent surety for a sum of Rs.25,000/- along with a personal bond of Rs.25,000/- to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court, he shall be released on bail.

8.

Certified copy as per rules.