Takeshwar Yadav vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 7332 Chatt

                                         1


                                                                           NAFR

              HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                                 MCRC No. 9372 of 2022

     1. Takeshwar Yadav S/o Sukhram Yadav Aged About 42 Years R/o House No.
        24/1, Ward No. 2, Vill. Chikhli, Post Sondra, Ps Urla, District : Raipur,
        Chhattisgarh

     2. Khomlal Yadav S/o Takeshwar Yadav Aged About 24 Years R/o House No.
        24/1, Ward No. 2, Vill Chikhli, Post Sondra, P.S. Urla, District : Raipur,
        Chhattisgarh

                                                                   ---- Applicants

                                      Versus

     • State Of Chhattisgarh Through SHO, PS Torva, District : Bilaspur,
       Chhattisgarh

                                                                 ---- Respondent

For Applicants             :     Shri Praveen Soni, Advocate
For State                  :     Shri Amit Verma, Panel Lawyer


                     Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput

                                 Order On Board

06/12/2022

        Heard.

1. The applicants have been arrested in connection with Crime No.0441/2022 registered at Police Station - Torva, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) for alleged commission of offences under Section 354, 366, 376 (2) (n) of IPC and 6, 12 of POCSO Act.

2. Prosecution story, in brief, is that applicant No.2 took the prosecutrix forcefully on his motorcycle and on threat, performed marriage and committed forceful sexual intercourse with her, who is a minor. The allegation against applicant No.1 is that he attempted to outrage her modesty.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have been falsely implicated and they have not committed any offence. The age of the prosecutrix is doubtful and the medical report as well as other evidence collected, do not inspire confidence. The applicants are in jail since

30/09/2022, trial is likely to take some time and there is no mens rea on the part of the applicants. It is also submitted that there is no serious allegation against applicant No.1 - Takeshwar Yadav. In support of his submission, he relies upon judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sunil v. State of Haryana, Cr.A.No.2308/2009 order dated 04/12/2009, order passed by Delhi High Court in Hanzla Iqbal v. The State and anr., decided on 24/8/2022 in Bail appln. No.1926/2022 and order passed by this Court in MCrC No.6158/2020 [Omprakash Khare (Suryavanshi) v. State of Chhattisgarh] and contended that the applicants may be granted bail. It is also submitted that the story put forth by the prosecutrix appears to be unreliable because it is stated that she sat on applicant's motor cycle and went to Torva Power House square and she was taken to village - Chikhli which was more than 100 kms away. She did not raise any alarm during this period, therefore, her statement appears to be unbelievable. He further submits that there is no allegation of sexual intercourse against applicant - Takeshwar Yadav and only because he happens to be father of applicant No.2- Khomlal Yadav, he has been implicated in this case.

4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes prayer and submits that the prosecutrix was minor at the time of incident and she has leveled categoric allegations in her 161 and 164 CrPC statements against applicant - Khomlal Yadav regarding sexual intercourse.

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

6. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, material collected by the prosecution, so far as applicant No.2 - Khomlal Yadav is concerned, I am not inclined to grant bail. His bail application is rejected. However, looking to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, allegation against applicant No.1 - Takeshwar Yadav, detention period, trial has not concluded yet, I am inclined to grant bail to applicant No.1 - Takeshwar Yadav.

7. Accordingly, the application of applicant No.1 - Takeshwar Yadav is allowed. It is directed that the applicant No.1 shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25000/- along with one surety for the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court on the condition that -

a) He shall appear before the trial Court regularly on each and every date,

unless exempted from appearance.

b) He shall not make any attempt to tamper with the prosecution witnesses.

Violation of any of the aforesaid conditions would lead to cancellation of bail granted to the applicant. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.

Certified copy as per rules.

Sd/-

(Sachin Singh Rajput ) Judge Deepti