Dinesh Kumar Baghel v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRC No. 8631 of 2018 • Dinesh Kumar Baghel S/o Shri Bhagwat Prasad Baghel @ Sabha Ram Aged About 20 Years R/o Village- Rojhandih, Police StationPamgarh, Civil And Revenue District- Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh. ---- Applicant

Versus

• State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station- Hasaud, Civil And Revenue District- Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondent __________________________________________________________________ For Applicant : Mr. Parasmani Shrivas, Advocate.

For Respondent/State : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Dy. GA.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel Order On Board 07/12/2018

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. 105/2017, registered at Police Station - Hasaud, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 363, 366 & 376 of the IPC and Section 4 & 6 of the POCSO Act.

2. In this case prosecutrix is a girl aged below 16 years. As per the prosecution story, on 14.08.2017, a missing report of the prosecutrix has been lodged by her father namely Munnalal Karsh. On the basis of said report, offence under Section 363 of the IPC has been registered. During course of investigation, the prosecutrix has been recovered on 14.06.2018 from the possession of the present Applicant. Thereafter, statements of the prosecutrix has been recorded and on the basis of her statements other offence were added. The Applicant is in custody since 16.06.2018.

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 prosecutrix and the present Applicant, prosecutrix left her house on her own will, in her statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. she does not support the case of the prosecution and turned hostile. The Applicant is in custody since 16.06.2018 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 in the statement of prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. she does not support the case of the prosecution. The Applicant is in custody since 16.06.2018 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