Kamal Narayan Baghmare v. State Of Chhattisgarh,

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR M.Cr.C. No. 4718 of 2021 Kamal Narayan Baghmare S/o Devendra Baghmare Aged About 19 Years R/o Village Tutidih Police Station Patewa District Mahasamund C G (Police Station And Address Wrongly Mentioned Twice In Rejection Order), District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh.

---- Applicant

Versus

State Of Chhattisgarh, Through - Police Station Patewa, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondent For the Applicant :

Shri Priyank Rathi, Advocate.

For the Respondent/State :

Smt. Hamida Siddique, Dy. A.G.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant

ORDER

28.07.2021 Heard.

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.34 of 2021, registered at Police Station - Patewa, District - Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366, 368 and 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

2.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is in jail since 24.2.2021 and has been falsely implicated in this case. The prosecutrix has been examined in the trial and she has not supported the

prosecution case. Hence, it is prayed that the applicant be enlarged on bail. 3.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application and the submissions made in this respect. It is submitted that on the date of incident the prosecutrix was minor and further, there are other witnesses yet to be examined in the trial. Hence, no case is made out for grant of bail to the applicant.

4.

The prosecutrix/ complainant is present before this virtual Court through the Help-Desk of the DLSA, Mahasamund. She made a statement that she has no objection in grant of bail to the applicant. 5.

Heard counsel for both the parties and perused the case diary. 6.

According to the prosecution case, on the date of incident, this applicant abducted the minor prosecutrix of age below 18 years, kept her in his custody and exploited her sexually knowing well that she is not competent to give such consent regarding which, the FIR has been lodged. 7.

Considered the submissions and the facts present in this case. Perused the certified copy of the deposition of the prosecutrix filed alongwith the application which shows that she has not supported the prosecution case in any manner. Hence, looking to this development, I feel inclined to grant regular bail to the applicant.

8.

Accordingly, the bail application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. is allowed.

9.

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. In case any default is committed by the applicant/s in appearing before the concerned trial Court, this order granting bail shall stand cancelled automatically.

Sd/- (Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant) Judge Nimmi