High CourtsSingle Bench

Mayank Yadav vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh High Court · Decided on 16 April 2018 · Citation: (2018) 04 CHH CK 0191

HON’BLE JUDGES
P. SAM KOSHY, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 439 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 363, 366, 376 · Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — Section 6
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
M.Cr.C. No.312 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

19 paragraphs · 400 words
1.

The applicant has preferred this bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in connection with Crime No.1132/2016 registered at Police Station

Supela, District Durg (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366 & 376 of IPC and 5 (L) & 6 of POCSO Act.

2.

Present applicant is in jail since 17/01/2017.

3.

The allegation against the present applicant as per the prosecution case is that, the present applicant knowing the fact that the prosecutrix was a

minor, he is said to have taken the prosecutrix to different places and there he is said to have on the pretext of marriage had a physical relationship

with her. Subsequently, an F.I.R. in this regard was lodged on 08/12/2016 and the present applicant has been arrested on 17/01/2017.

4.

The counsel for the applicant submits that plain reading of the statements of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 161 and 164 of Cr.P.C. itself

would reveal that there are material contradiction in her statements. Moreover, it would also reveal that the conduct of the prosecutrix itself would

show that she had voluntarily gone along with the present applicant to different places and with consent, they had a physical relationship and thus

prayed for releasing the applicant on bail.

5.

The State counsel however opposing the bail application submits that, the consent of the prosecutrix is immaterial for the reason that the prosecutrix

was a minor and thus prayed for rejection of bail application.

6.

Having heard the contentions put forth on either side and on perusal of record particularly taking note of the report of the Radiologist who have on

examination the prosecutrix has given a report of her being aged between 17-18 years and also considering the conflicting averments made by the

prosecutrix in her statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. when compared to the statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. this Court is of the opinion

that, prima-facie, a strong case has been made out for grant of bail to the present applicant.

7.

Accordingly, the application for grant of bail is allowed. It is ordered that the applicant shall be released on bail on his executing 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. The applicant shall thereafter appear before the

Trial Court on each and every date given by the said court.