Bhuneshwar Poyam v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRC No. 3866 of 2020 • Bhuneshwar Poyam S/o Late Santaram Poyam Aged About 24 Years Resident Of Dandvan, Police Station Makadi, District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh ---- Applicant

Versus

• State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station Makadi, Kondagaon Chhattisgarh ---- Respondent ___________________________________________________________________ For Applicant/s :

Mr. Raza Ali, Advocate.

For State :

Mr. Alok Bakshi, Additional A.G.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Order On Board 17/08/2020 Heard.

1. The applicant has moved this application for grant of bail as he is arrested in connection with Crime No.48/2019 registered at Police Station- Makadi, District-Kondagaon, C.G. for the alleged commission of offence under Sections 370(1), (4,5) (3), 34 of IPC.

2. Prosecution case is that the applicant had taken three complainants in the name of providing job and thereafter, they were taken to different places and subjected to human exploitation by not providing food facility nor paying proper salary and taking extra work.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the allegations against the present applicant are exaggerated. He would submit that all the complainants are major and they all had gone accepting offer of employment. He would submit that as far as present applicant is concerned, there is no allegation against him that he subjected the complainants to any kind of exploitation but the allegation is that later on, they were taken to another place by another person Mr. Varun and from there exploitation began. Learned counsel for the applicant also submits that three complainants have already filed their affidavits and submitted no objection to grant of bail to the present applicant, charge sheet has also been filed and present is not a case where applicant is

likely to abscond or tamper with prosecution witnesses, therefore, at this stage, the applicant may be granted bail.

4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application.

5. Taking into consideration the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of allegations, role alleged to be played by applicant and that all the complainants are major, there is no allegation of sexual exploitation and some of them have also submitted no objection to grant of bail to the present applicant, charge sheet has been filed and there is no material to show that applicant is likely to abscond or tamper with prosecution witnesses, therefore, at this stage, I am inclined to grant bail to the applicant.

6. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. It is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- along with two local sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court on the condition thata) He shall appear before the Trial Court regularly on each and every date, unless exempted from appearance.

b) He shall not in any manner, tamper with the prosecution witnesses.

7. It is made clear that if the applicant is again found involve in similar kind of offence, it would be open for the State to apply for cancellation of bail. Certified copy as per rules.

Sd/- (Manindra Mohan Shrivastava) Judge Ravi