Puneet Kumar Sahu v. State Of Chhattisgarh
NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR M.Cr.C. No. 5931 of 2018 Puneet Kumar Sahu, S/o Shri Dayalu Ram Sahu, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Village Parpoda, P.S. Saja, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh, Presently R/o Tiranga Chowk, Amleshwar, P.S. Amleshwar, District Durg, Chhattisgarh.
---- Applicant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh, Through Station House Officer, Police Station Mohannagar, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. ---- Non-Applicant For Applicant : Shri Varunendra Mishra, Advocate.
For State/ Non-Applicant : Shri Shakti Singh Thakur, P. L.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Agrawal Order On Board 20.09.2019
1. This is the second bail application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for grant of regular bail to the applicant Puneet Kumar Sahu, as he has been arrested on 19.01.2018 in connection with Crime No. 243/2016, registered in Police Station Mohannagar, District Durg (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 363, 366 & 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC, 1860') and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from the Sexual
Offences Act, 2012 (for short 'POCSO, Act 2012'). The first bail application was rejected on 18.09.2018 in M.Cr.C. No.3589/2018.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the mother of the prosecutrix, namely, Chandrakala, has lodged the report on 14.05.2016, that someone has abducted her daughter. On the basis of the said report, an investigation has been made which reveals that the present applicant has committed the sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix, the minor, aged 15 years 6 months old, on the pretext of marriage with her. Further prosecution story is that the present applicant has forcefully kept the said prosecutrix in his friend Kishan Mandle's house, the other co-accused person and thereafter sent her to Raigarh with his said friend who has kept her with him and as per the instructions of present applicant, he (Kishan Mandle) took the prosecutrix to Sultanpur (U.P.), where he kept her for 3 months and thereafter took her to Nawagarh (Bemetara).
It reveals further from the investigation that said Kishan kept her (prosecutrix) with his parents for a period of 3 months and then took her to the village Kavas at Gujarat, where he assaulted the prosecutrix and committed sexual intercourse with her. Based upon this investigation, the charge sheet has been filed on 10.04.2018 before the concerned Court for the offence as mentioned aforesaid.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in connection with
the aforesaid crime. According to him, the prosecutrix though alleged against the present applicant in her statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., but has not stated anything against him regarding alleged sexual intercourse in her statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. He submits further that the entire allegation was infact against the co-accused person, namely, Kishan Mandle and not against the present applicant. While inviting the attention of this Court to paragraph 28 of the statement of prosecutrix, it is submitted further by Shri Mishra that the prosecutrix was just took by this applicant to the house of the Kishan Mandle's aunt and nothing was done by the present applicant, and therefore, under such circumstances, he may be enlarged on bail.
4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail application and submits that the offence which has been registered against the applicant is serious in nature and while inviting the attention of this Court to paragraph 2 of her (prosecutrix) statement, it is submitted that under the pressure of present applicant, she was taken by him to the house of the Kishan Mandle's aunt. The applicant is, therefore, not entitled to be enlarged on bail.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the statement of prosecutrix (PW-1) examined on 28.06.2019, along with the entire case diary carefully.
6. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, the manner in which the alleged offence has been committed
by the applicant, considering further the statement of prosecutrix as recorded at paragraph 2 of her statement and that by considering the age of the prosecutrix, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail. The application is accordingly rejected.
Sd/- (Sanjay Agrawal) Judge Deepti Jha
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Order Sheet Cr.M.P. No.2215 of 2019 Puneet Kumar Sahu Versus State of Chhattisgarh 03/10/2019 Shri Rahim Ubwani, P. L. for the State/Non-Applicant. The case is listed for order on correction in the order dated 20.09.2019, wherein due to inadvertence, '2018' has been mentioned instead of '2019'.
The aforesaid correction in the order dated 20.09.2019 is apparent on the face of record and, therefore, it needs to be corrected. It is made clear that the year '2018' appearing in the first page of the order be now read as '2019'.
A copy of this order be supplied to the parties along with the copy of the said order.
Sd/- (Sanjay Agrawal) Judge Deepti Jha