Meenu Verma v. State Of Chhattisgarh

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRC No. 239 of 2016 Meenu Verma, son of Parmanand Verma, aged about 19 years, r/o village Paleni, Post Hantranka, Police Station & Tahsil Khamhariya, Civil and Revenue District Bemetara (C.G) ... Applicant Vs.

State of Chhattisgarh, through Station House Officer, Police Station Khamhariya, Civil and Revenue District Bemetara (C.G).

...Respondent

For the applicant :

Mr. Vaibhav Goverdhan, Advocate.

For the Respondent :

Mr. Anant Bajpai, Panel Lawyer.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order on Board 28.01.2016

1. This is an application filed u/s 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking granting of regular bail to the applicant in connection with Crime No. 126 of 2015 registered at Police station Khamhariya, Distt. Bemetara (C.G) for the offences punishable under sections 363, 366, 376, 323, 506 of IPC and Sections 4, 8 of the Protection of Children from sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Section 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

2. As per the prosecution case, on 14.11.2015 the applicant went to the house of prosecutrix, caught hold of her hand and thereafter took her away on the pretext of marriage and during her stay with the applicant, she was subjected to forcible sexual intercourse.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the charge sheet in this case has been filed and the according to the statement of mother of prosecutrix, it would reveal that negotiations for

marriage between the applicant and victim were going on 14.01.2015 while other marriage proposals were there in the house the applicant came there and caught hold of hand of victim, took her away and they stayed for about 7 months in the same village. Learned counsel submits that during this period, no objection was raised, therefore, he submits that the FIR is grossly delayed and the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that according to the ossification test, the age of the prosecutrix was 17-18 years. It is also submitted that the charge sheet has been filed and the applicant is in jail since 26.09.2015, therefore, he may be enlarged on bail. Regarding delay in filing the FIR, he placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in Mohd. Ali alias Guddu Vs. State of U.P., (2015) 7 SCC 272.

4. Per contra, learned State Counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bail.

5. Perused the case diary and the statement of victim which was recorded before the Women and Child Welfare Board Bemetara. In the statement of prosecutrix it is stated that she was forced to stay along with applicant on the pretext of marriage and was sexually exploited and subsequently the applicant refused to marry her and denied the relations.

6. Taking into such statement of the victim girl, I am not inclined to allow this bail application. Accordingly, it is rejected. Sd/- GOUTAM BHADURI JUDGE Rao