Ritesh Yadav v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRC No. 7333 of 2018 • Ritesh Yadav S/o Rameshvar Yadav Aged About 18 Years R/o Village Dumarpali, Police Station Pithora, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh ---- Applicant

Versus

• State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Patewa, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh ---- Respondent __________________________________________________________________ For Applicant : Shri Vikash Pradhan, Advocate.

For Respondent/State : Shri Adil Minhaj, Panel Lawyer.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel Order On Board 04/12/2018

1. The Applicant has preferred this first bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail as he is arrested in connection with crime No. 117/2018, registered at Police Station - Patewa, District- Mahasamund (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366 & 376 of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act.

2. In this case prosecutrix is a girl aged about 15 years 10 months, on 22.08.2018, a missing report of prosecutrix was made by Jitendra Nayak father of the prosecutrix, wherein it was complained that her daughter/prosecutrix missing since 16.08.2018. On the basis of said report, initially offence under Section 363 has been registered. During course of investigation on 28.08.2018 prosecutrix has been recovered from the possession of the present applicant. Her statements were recorded, thereafter other offence were added. The applicant is in custody since 29.08.2018.

3. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant submits that the

Applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. He further submits that there was a love relationship between the applicant and the prosecutrix, prosecutrix left her house on her own will, prosecutrix was examined before the Trial Court and she does not support the case of the prosecution and turned hostile, the Applicant is in custody since 29.08.2018 and trial will take some time. Therefore, he may be released on bail.

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

5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the case diary with due care.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the evidence collected by the prosecution and further considering the fact that prosecutrix was examined before the Trial Court and she has not supported the case of the prosecution and turned hostile, the Applicant is in custody since 29.08.2018 and trial is likely to take some time, without further commenting on merits 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. 25,000/- with one solvent surety for the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for his appearance before the said Court as and when directed.

Sd/- (Arvind Singh Chandel) Judge Shubham