Krishnakant Singh v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRC No.8474 of 2016 • Krishnakant Singh S/o Rampravesh Singh Aged About 46 Years R/o Shivanand Nagar, Sector-3 Thana- Khamtarai, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

---- Petitioner

Versus

• State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Khamtarai, Diatrict Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondent For Petitioner :

Ms. Smita Jha, Advocate For Respondent/State :

Shri Manish Nigam, PL S.B. :

Hon'ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Order On Board 02/01/2017 Heard.

2.

The applicant has moved this application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail in connection with Crime No.100/2016 registered at Police Station Khamtarai, District Raipur for the offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The applicant has been arrested on 09-06-2016. 3.

This is second application for grant of bail. First bail application was dismissed by this Court on 07-11-2016.

4.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the prosecutrix and other important prosecution witnesses including the parents of the prosecutrix and doctor have already been examined and from the statement of prosecutrix and other prosecution witnesses, the prosecution case has become doubtful because the prosecutrix has made statement on the basis of what was told to her by one Vikas Tiwari, which shows that the applicant has been falsely

involved in the offence. The medical evidence also does not clearly point out any injury in the private part of the prosecutrix, which discloses that she was not subjected to any rape by the applicant and there are other circumstances like contradiction and omission in the statements and also that the prosecutrix was suffering from some kind of disease and there was property dispute, which reveals that there is a possibility of false implication of applicant in the alleged offence. He lastly submits that the applicant is in jail since 09-06-2016, but till date, the trial has not been completed even after six months, therefore, the applicant may be granted bail.

5.

On the other hand, learned State counsel opposed the prayer for grant of bail on the submission that the prosecutrix in her statement has clearly stated regarding alleged commission of offence. He further submits that some more important prosecution witnesses are yet to be examined and looking to the age of the prosecutrix, the applicant is not entitled to bail. 6.

Taking into consideration the submission of learned counsel for the parties, particularly taking into consideration the statement of the prosecutrix and the nature of allegation against the applicant, I am not inclined to grant bail to the applicant.

7.

In the result, the application is rejected.

SD/- ( Manindra Mohan Shrivastava) J U D G E Tumane