High Court Of ChhattisgarhMCRC/9456/2018allowed

Baldev Vishwakarma v. State Of Chhattisgarh

2019-01-11Hon'Ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRC No. 9456 of 2018 • Baldev Vishwakarma, S/o Prem Narayan Vishwakarma (Bundel Singh wrongly mentioned in order sheet), aged about 25 years, R/o VillageKhatkiya, Post- Barkheda, P.S.- Kumbhraj, District- Guna, Madhya Pradesh. ---- Applicant

Versus

• State of Chhattisgarh Through- P.S. Pandri, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent ________________________________________________________________ For Applicant : Shri Devarshi Thakur, Advocate on behalf of Shri Anchal Kumar Matre, Advocate.

For Respondent/State : Shri UKS Chandel, Panel Lawyer.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel Order On Board 11/01/2019

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. 262/2018, registered at Police Station - Pandri, District- Raipur, (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376 of IPC and 4 & 6 of POCSO Act, 2012.

2. As per the prosecution story, prosecutrix is a girl aged about 16 years. On 15.07.2018, mother of the prosecutrix lodged a missing report of her daughter. On the basis of the said report, initially offence under Section 363 of the IPC has been registered against the Applicant. During course of investigation, prosecutrix has been recovered from the possession of the present Applicant on 21.08.2018. Statements of the prosecutrix have been recorded thereafter other offences have been added. The Applicant has been taken into custody on 22.08.2018.

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 states that there was a love relationship between the Applicant and the prosecutrix, due to which prosecutrix herself has left her house on her own will. Both Applicant and the prosecutrix have also performed marriage. Statement of the prosecutrix has been recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. wherein she has not supported the case of the prosecution. The Applicant is in custody since 22.08.2018. 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.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the evidence collected by the prosecution and further considering the fact that the prosecutrix in her statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., has not supported the case of the prosecution, the Applicant is in custody since 22.08.2018 and trial is likely to take some time, without further commenting on merits of the case, I am inclined to release him 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. 20,000/- 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 Prakash