Raju Bhuiya Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh High Court 25 Jun 2018 Miscellaneous Criminal Case (MCRC) No. 3403 Of 2018
Bench: Single Bench
Result Published
Acts Referenced

Judgement Snapshot

Case Number

Miscellaneous Criminal Case (MCRC) No. 3403 Of 2018

Hon'ble Bench

P. Sam Koshy, J

Advocates

Sharmila Singhai, Shashank Thakur

Final Decision

Allowed

Acts Referred

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 363, 366 (A), 376#Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 164#Protection Of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — Section 5(L), 6

Judgement Text

Translate:

P. Sam Koshy, J

1. This is the first bail application seeking for grant of bail to the Applicant who is in jail since 23.11.2017 in connection with Crime No. 59 of 2016

registered at Police Station Parpodi, Distt. Bemetara, for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366 (A), 376 IPC and Sections 5(L) and 6 of the

POCSO Act.

2. As per prosecution case, the applicant is said to have abducted the prosecutrix, a minor girl, and have kept her in confinement without consent of

her parents and have had physical relationship with the prosecutrix for a considerable period of time.

3. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that a plain reading of the statement of the prosecutrix under Section 164 CrPC would reveal that there

is a clear case of consent by the prosecutrix and that she was voluntarily gone along with the applicant. There is no sufficient proof available in the

case diary to also establish the fact that the prosecutrix is a minor and that the version of the prosecution so far as prosecutrix being minor cannot be

held to be conclusive or authentic. Thus, prayed that the present applicant be released on bail.

4. The State counsel opposing the application submits that the prosecutrix was a minor on the date of incident and irrespective of whether she is a

consenting party, the fact that she is a minor would dis-entitle the applicant from any bail. Thus, prayed for rejection of bail.

5. Without commenting on merits, considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case particularly taking note of the statement of the

prosecutrix wherein she has categorically stated of having voluntarily gone along with the applicant and also taking note of the age of the prosecutrix

as also that of applicant, this Court is of the opinion that the present is a fit case where the Applicant can be enlarged on bail.

6. Accordingly, the application for grant of bail is allowed. It is directed that the Applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond

for a sum of Rs.20,000/- with one surety of the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Trial Court for his appearance as and when directed.

From The Blog
Supreme Court: Hindu Succession Act Excludes Tribal Daughters
Oct
22
2025

Story

Supreme Court: Hindu Succession Act Excludes Tribal Daughters
Read More
Supreme Court Alarmed at 8.82 Lakh Pending Execution Cases
Oct
22
2025

Story

Supreme Court Alarmed at 8.82 Lakh Pending Execution Cases
Read More