Prashant Sinha vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 7206 Chatt

                                  1

                                                              NAFR


     HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                       MCRCA No. 1365 of 2022
    Prashant Sinha S/o Shri Sachidanand Sinha Aged About 43 Years
     R/o Tirupati Enclave, House No. 26, Kanchan Vihar, Police
     Station Amanaka, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
                                                       ---- Applicant
                               Versus
    State of Chhattisgarh, Through - Police Station - Amanaka,
     Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
                                                    ---- Respondent

For Applicant                 : Mr. Uttam Pandey, Adv.
For Respondent/State          : Mr. Shrestha Gupta, P.L.



             Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput
                           Order on Board

01/12/2022

1. This application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure has been filed by the applicant who is apprehending

his arrest in connection with Crime No. 325/2022 registered at

Police Station- Amanaka, District- Raipur (C.G.) for commission

of the offence punishable under Section 354 of IPC and Section

8 of POCSO Act, 2012.

2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 29.08.2022 at

around 6:45 pm, the complainant got a call from his daughter

(prosecutrix) stating that a few moments ago, while she was

walking on her terrace; the applicant suddenly came onto her

terrace and put his hand on her shoulder while talking to her

and with bad intention pressed her chest, anyhow she got rid of

the applicant by moving quickly, went to her house and told

everything to her mother. Based on this, the offence has been

registered against the present applicants.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is

innocent and has been falsely implicated in the alleged crime.

He next submits that the applicant has not committed any

crime which has been alleged against him. He further submits

that the applicant has been falsely implicated on the ground

that earlier to the alleged incident there was some quarrel on

account of the Ganesh procession. Earlier the relationship

between the complainant's family and the present applicant

was cordial. He thereafter submits that on the date and time of

the alleged incident he was not on the spot rather he was in

Durg. He submits that it could be ascertained by the CCTV

Footage of the toll plaza between Durg and Raipur. In order to

strengthen his submissions he relied upon the Judgment of the

Hon'ble High Court of Meghalaya passed in the matter of Ariqul

Hoque Azad vs. State of Meghalaya & Another vide order

dated 23.06.2022 and upon the Judgments of the Hon'ble High

Court of Gujarat passed in the matters of Dhanabhai

Gopalbhai Patel vs. State of Gujarat vide order dated

27.05.2022 and Darshanaben Jagdishbhai Makwana Vs.

State of Gujarat vide order dated 13.05.2022, contend that

simply a report has been lodged by the complainant alleging the

offences under the POCSO Act it could not mean that the report

is a gospel truth. He lastly submits that the applicant is a very

reputed person and in the event of arrest his reputation will be

jeopardized and his custodial interrogation may not be

necessary. Therefore, the present applicant may be released on

anticipatory bail.

4. On the other hand, counsel for the State vehemently opposes

the bail application and submits that the age of the prosecutrix

is 14 years. The alleged incident took place on 29.08.2022 at

about 18:45 hours and the prompt report has been lodged on

the same day at about 20:40 hours, specific allegations of the

offence under the POCSO Act have been levelled against the

present applicant. He further submits that in her statements

recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of Cr.P.C. she has

categorically levelled serious allegations against the present

applicant since the crime is against the children, at this stage, it

cannot be said that the entire allegation is false. Therefore, the

applicant may not be granted anticipatory bail.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

case diary.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, looking to

the rival submissions made by counsel for the parties at the bar,

looking to the evidence so collected by the prosecution, the age

of the victim, her statements recorded under Sections 161 and

164 of the Cr.P.C., without commenting anything on merits of

the case at this stage, I am not inclined to allow this application.

With due respect, I am unable to agree with the Judgments cited

by the learned counsel for the applicant.

7. Accordingly, his application filed under Section 438 of the Code

of Criminal Procedure is rejected.

Sd/-

(Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge

H.L. Sahu