Chattisgarh High Court
Ajay Kumar Khande vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 29 November, 2022
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
MCRC No. 9283 of 2022
Ajay Kumar Khande S/o Aadhar Khande Aged About 19 Years
Aged About 19 Years, 06 Months, R/o Kohadiya, Police Station
And District- Mungeli, Chhattisgarh
---- Applicant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police-
Station Nawagarh, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh
---- Non-Applicant
For the Applicant : Mr. Sudhir Verma, Advocate
For Non-Applicant : Ms. Deepti Shukla, P.L.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput
Order On Board
29.11.2022
1.
The applicant has preferred this first bail application under
Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail as he is in jail
since 05.04.2022 in connection with Crime No. 19/2021
registered at Police Station Nawagarh, District- Bemetara
(C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366,
376(2) (j) (n), 376 (3) of the Indian Penal Code and Sections
4, & 6 of POCSO Act.
2. The case of the prosecution in brief, is that on the date of
incident dated 18.01.2022 the victim had gone to school at
11:00 a.m. but did not return. Her father lodged first
information report against the unknown person. The accused
brought the victim from village-Douna-deeh to Manpur then
they reached Bhopal via Bemetara, Raipur and stayed there
10-15 days with father of the accused. Thereafter, they
reached Pune. Accused started working as labor and the
victim was living as house-wise. The police of Nawagarh
brought both the victim and accused from Pune and after
completion of investigation police has registered the said
offence.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is
an innocent person and has been falsely implicated in this
case. He further submits that the applicant is in jail since
05.04.2022 and there are 24 witnesses mentioned in the
charge-sheet, out of which 6 witnesses have been examined
therefore there is a delay in trial. Though the victim and
some witnesses have been examined but their statements
do not inspire with confidence as the age of the victim is
doubtful and the prosecution was unable to prove of the age
of the victim because the witnesses have stated different
version in different times. She further submits the doctor who
has been examined has not supported the case of the
prosecution therefore looking to the detention period,
applicant may be released on bail.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes
the bail application and submits that the trial is continuing
and sooner or later the prosecution shall conclude the trial.
She further submits that the prosecutrix and some other
witnesses have been examined, therefore, it can not be said
that they have not supported the case of the prosecution and
even otherwise the appreciation of these witnesses is in
domain the trial Court while deciding the case if any findings
is given by this Court which is prejudice the case of the
prosecution before the trial Court. She further submits that
looking to the maximum sentence provided under the section
or which applicant has been charged, the judgment which
has been cited by the counsel for the applicant is of no help
to the applicant. She further submit that the applicant aged
about 14 years 4 months on the date of commission of crime,
therefore the application may be rejected.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
case diary.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and
looking to the nature of allegations, age of prosecutrix,
perusal of records, statement appended with the memo of
application seriousness of the offence, looking to the age of
the applicant, Statement of the prosecutrix and other
witnesses at this stag this Court is not inclined to grant bail to
the applicant. However looking to the detention period of the
applicant, he is in jail since 05.04.2022, it is expected that
the trial Court shall expedite the trial.
7. Accordingly, the bail application of applicant is rejected.
Sd/-
(Sachin Singh Rajput)
Judge
vaishali
