Rajat Kumar Manjhi @ Pilli v. State Of Chhattisgarh
Page No.1 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRC No. 556 of 2019 • Rajat Kumar Manjhi @ Pilli, S/o Ramsanai Manjhi, aged about 23 Years, R/o Camp-1, Adarsh Nagar, Near Durga Kirana Stores, Police Station- Chhawani, Bhilai, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh. ---- Applicant
Versus
• State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Chhawani, Bhilai, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondent _____________________________________________________________ For Applicant :
Mr. Anurag Jha, Advocate.
For Respondent/State :
Mr. Avinash K. Mishra, Panel Lawyer.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant Order On Board 15/03/2019
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.589/2017 registered at Police Station-Chhawani Bhilai, District- Durg(C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376 of the Indian Penal Code along with Section 5(J)(ii) & 6 of the POCSO Act.
2. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. Applicant is in jail since 22.1.2018. No case is made out against him. The prosecutrix claims to be of age is of 17 years, but her age is above 18 years. This is second
Page No.2 incident reported against the applicant of committing the offence of rape with the prosecutrix. In the earlier prosecution before the Sessions Court, Mungeli in Special Sessions Case No.15/2016, the applicant has been acquitted vide judgment dated 28.7.2017, in which, the prosecutrix was the same person. According to the statement given by the prosecutrix herself, she has performed marriage with applicant in the temple at Dongargarh and she had been to various places with him regarding which she had no grievance, her grievance was only against Rambabu, who is the co-accused and he is absconding, therefore, it is prayed that applicant be enlarged on regular bail.
3. Learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submissions made in this respect. It is submitted that prosecutrix is a minor, therefore, any consent of willingness on her part is of no consequence, hence, it is prayed that application be rejected.
4. Heard both the parties and perused the case diary.
5. As alleged this applicant abducted eloped with minor prosecutrix and then by taking her to various places committed the offence of rape with her.
6. After considering on the entire material present in the case diary, circumstances of the case and also for the reason that the applicant is in jail since about one year and there is possibility of delay in conclusion of trial, I am of this opinion, that he should be enlarged on regular bail.
7. 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
Page No.3 appearance as and when directed.
Sd/- (Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant) Judge Nisha