Aap Pradeep Chatuvarvedani Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh High Court 2 Jul 2018 Miscellaneous Criminal Case (MCRC) No. 3377 Of 2018
Bench: Single Bench
Result Published
Acts Referenced

Judgement Snapshot

Case Number

Miscellaneous Criminal Case (MCRC) No. 3377 Of 2018

Hon'ble Bench

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J

Advocates

Kamlesh Kumar Pandey, Avinash Singh

Final Decision

Dismissed

Acts Referred

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 363, 366, 376, 506#Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 439#Protection Of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — Section 4, 6

Judgement Text

Translate:

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J

1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of regular bail to the applicants who have

been arrested in connection with Crime No. 169/2017, registered at Police Station Urla (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 366, 363, 376,

506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 / 6 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that, the applicant has committed sexual intercourse with the minor prosecutrix and thereby committed the

offence under the aforesaid sections.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the crime in question and has not committed any offence.

He further submits that the applicant is in custody since 23.08.2017 and charge-sheet has been filed and the statement of prosecutrix has been

recorded in which she has not supported the case and the medical evidence has also not supported the case of the prosecution and also the trial is

likely to take some time for its final disposal, therefore he may be released on bail.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application.

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

6. Taking into consideration the facts & circumstances of the case; further taking into consideration the nature & gravity of the offence; role of the

present applicant; statement of the prosecutrix recorded in the Court, and also the age of the prosecutrix, I do not consider it a fit case, in which, the

applicant should be enlarged on regular bail.

7. Accordingly, bail application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. is rejected.

Certified copy as per rules.

From The Blog
Supreme Court Reviews GST on Leasehold Rights, Eyes Impact
Oct
25
2025

Story

Supreme Court Reviews GST on Leasehold Rights, Eyes Impact
Read More
Delhi HC: Ending Arbitration for Default Isn’t an Award
Oct
25
2025

Story

Delhi HC: Ending Arbitration for Default Isn’t an Award
Read More