High Court Of ChhattisgarhMCRC/1438/2016rejected

Santosh Banjare v. State Of Chhattisgarh

2016-04-13Hon'Ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRC No.

of 201 Santosh Banjare, S/o Agrahit, aged about-23 years, r/oSukul Daihan, P.S.- Lalbag, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ---- Applicant

Versus

State Of Chhattisgarh: Through Station House Officer, Police Station - Lalbag, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) -----Non-applicant For Applicant:

Mr. Pramod Verma, Senior Advocate with Shri Sumit Verma, Advocate.

For Non-applicant/State:Mr. O.P. Sahu, Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order on Board /0 4 /201 Heard.

(1) The accused/applicant has moved this bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for releasing him on regular bail during trial in connection with Crime No. 121/2013 registered at Police Station Lalbag, Revenue & Civil District - Rajnandgaon for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366 & 376 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 4 & 6 of Protection of Children fro Sexaul Offences Act. (2) Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that applicant committed sexual intercourse with the minor proseuctrix from 31.03.2013 to 2.10.2014 and thereby committed the aforesaid offences.

(3) Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant submits that the six prosecution witnesses have been examined and they have not supported the case of prosecution and, as such, there is no evidence about the age of the prosecutrix to be minor and, therefore, the applicant may be released on bail. (4) Counsel for the State opposes the bail application and submits that the prosecution witnesses have fully supported the case of the prosecution and therefore, the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail.

(5) Taking into consideration the facts & circumstances of the case and the manner in which the offence is said to have been committed and taking into account the evidence available in the case diary against the applicant; I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail. Thus, the bail application is rejected. However, the trial Court is directed to conclude the trial expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order as six witnesses have already been examined.

Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge D/-