High CourtsSingle Bench

Lokesh Yadav vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh High Court · Decided on 17 May 2021 · Citation: (2021) 05 CHH CK 0120

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 164, 439 · Protection Of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — Section 6
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Miscellaneous Criminal Case (MCRC) No. 1941 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

21 paragraphs · 359 words

Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant, J

Heard.

1.

This is the second bail application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on behalf of the applicant for grant of regular

bail to him as he is in custody in connection with Crime No.480/2020 registered at Police - Station-Khamtarai, District-Raipur (C.G.) for the offence

punishable under Section 363, 366, 376 of IPC and Section 6, of POCSO Act.

2.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the first bail application was dismissed as withdrawn on 19.11.2020. It is next submitted

that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. The prosecutrix was not minor and the relationship of the applicant and prosecutrix was

based on consent and during trial she has not Page No.2 supported the case of the prosecution, hence, there is no case against this applicant, hence, it

is prayed that he may be enlarged on regular bail.

3.

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

clearly alleged the applicant in her diary statement and the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., therefore, the applicant is not entitled for grant of

bail.

4.

Notice has issued to complainant.

5.

I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the case diary.

6.

As per prosecution case, it is submitted that this applicant abducted the minor prosecutrix and he exploited her sexually knowing well that she was

not capable to give valid consent for such relationship.

7.

Considered on the submissions. On perusal of certified copy of deposition of prosecutrix, it is found that she is a hostile witness. Hence, looking to

this development, I feel inclined to allow the application of this applicant.

8.

Accordingly, the bail application filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. is allowed. It is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail on his

furnishing a personal bond for a 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.