Rajeev Pandey @ Sonu v. State Of Chhattisgarh
NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR M.CR.C. No. 3286 of 2018 Rajeev Pandey @ Sonu, S/o. Ravikant Pandey, Aged About 22 Years, R/o.- Mukhtiyarganj, Chauraha Near Circuit House, P.S. Mukhtiyarganj, DistrictSatna, (M.P.) Present Address- Sai Vatika, B-06, Devpuri, P.S. Tikrapara, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
---- Applicant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh, Through- Police Station, Tikrapara, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Mateen Siddiqui, Advocate For State/respondent : Mrs. Smita Ghai, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant Order On Board 03/07/2018 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.135/2017, registered at Police Station -Tikrapara, District - Raipur (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Section 363, 368, 370, 372, 376, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 3, 4, 5 & 6 of Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act and Sections 3 (1) B, 3 (2) (5) of S.T./S.C. Act.
2.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. Applicant is in jail since 10.04.2017. Charge-sheet has been filed after completion of investigation. Prosecutrix in this case has been examined before the trial Court and she has not supported the case of the prosecution. Similarly placed co-accused person namely Baba @ Sapan Das has been enlarged on bail by this Court. Hence, it is prayed that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.
3.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application and the submission made in this respect. 4.
I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the case diary.
5.
According to the case of the prosecution, the prosecutrix while living with co-accused Sapan Sarkar, Sukanti @ Manju, Harpal and Guidya Gautam was compelled to indulge in the business of prostitution. The allegation against this applicant is that the he used to bring the customers for the said business and has himself exploited her sexually. 6.
Considered on the submissions made and the contents of the case diary. Considering on all the material present in the case diary and as appears that similarly placed co-accused person in this case has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 20.02.2018, passed in M.Cr.C. No.7739/2017 and further taking into account the fact that the main witness i.e. prosecutrix in this case has not supported the case of the prosecution, hence for this reason, this Court is of the opinion that present is a fit case, in which, the applicant should be enlarged on regular bail.
7.
Accordingly, the bail application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. is allowed.
8.
It is directed that applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court, for his appearance as and when directed.
Certified copy as per rules.
Sd/- (Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant) Judge Balram