Sonu Kumar v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRC No. 3927 of 2018 Sonu Kumar, aged about 19 years, S/o Hajarilal Chandra, R/o VillagePadahardi, P.S. & Tahsil Jaijaipur, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.). ---- Applicant

Versus

State of Chhattisgarh, Through- District- Magistrate, Janjgir, District- JanjgirChampa (C.G.)., ---- Respondent For Applicant :

Mr. Ishwar Jaiswal, Advocate For Respondent :

Mr. Arvind Shukla, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel Order on Board 25/06/2018 1.

The applicant has preferred First bail application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C for grant of regular bail as he is arrested in connection with Crime No. 83/2018 registered at Police Station- Baradwar, Distt. Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 354 A (I) (II) & 323 of IPC and Section 8 of the POCSO Act. 2.

As per prosecution story on 20/03/2018, the present applicant by giving the promise to marry with the complainant trying to outrage the modesty of the complainant/prosecutrix and thereafter a written complaint was made by the prosecutrix/complainant. On the said complaint, offence was registered and the applicant was arrested on 23/03/2018.

3.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. He is innocent. He further submits that there is delay in recording of the FIR

which was not explained by the prosecution. As per FIR lodged by the complainant/prosecutrix, she herself had left her parental house along with the present applicant. He further submits that there was love relation between the applicant and prosecutrix. The applicant is in jail since 23/03/2018 and the trial will likely to take some time to conclude, therefore, he prays for releasing of the applicant on bail. 4.

Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the bail application.

5.

I have heard learned counsel for both the parties. 6.

Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, particularly that the applicant is in custody since 23/03/2018 and as per FIR, the prosecutrix herself had left her parental house along with the present applicant, without further commenting on merit of the case, I am inclined to release the applicant on bail. 7.

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. 8.

It is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail on executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety for the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. Thereafter, he will appear before the Trial Court on each and every date given by the said Court. Sd/- Judge Arvind Singh Chandel Rahul