Md. Saddam And Ors Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh High Court 26 Jun 2018 Miscellaneous Criminal Case (MCRC) No. 3103, 3700 Of 2018 (2018) 06 CHH CK 0146
Bench: Single Bench
Result Published
Acts Referenced

Judgement Snapshot

Case Number

Miscellaneous Criminal Case (MCRC) No. 3103, 3700 Of 2018

Hon'ble Bench

Goutam Bhaduri, J

Advocates

AK Yadav, Wasim Miyan

Final Decision

Dismissed

Acts Referred
  • Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 363, 365, 376, 506
  • Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 164, 439
  • Protection Of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Section 5(L), 6

Judgement Text

Translate:

Goutam Bhaduri, J

1. Since both these bail applications are arising out of the same crime, therefore, they are decided together by this common order.

2. These are the First Bail Applications filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of regular bail to the applicants in

connection with Crime No.07/2018 registered at Police Station Samripath, District Balrampur - Ramanujganj (CG) for the offence punishable under

Sections 363, 365, 376, & 506 IPC and Sections 5 (L) & 6 of the POCSO Act.

3. As per the prosecution case, it is alleged that on 26.01.2018 Prashant Gupta along with the other co-accused namely Alam Khan and Chotu Khan

abducted three girls with the help of Md. Saddam, who was a driver and thereafter Prashant Gupta and two others committed forceful sexual

intercourse. Thereby the offence has been committed.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the prosecutrix have disowned the incident in the statement given under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and

they in fact had went for a picnic and no offence is made out against the applicants, therefore, the applicants may be released on bail.

5. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bail.

6. Perused the statements of three prosecutrix, wherein they have categorically stated about the commission of rape. Considering the same and taking

into the totality of the fact at this stage, I am not inclined to release the applicants on bail.

7. Accordingly, both the bail applications are dismissed.

From The Blog
Delhi High Court Clarifies: ‘No Coercive Measures’ Protects Only Against Arrest, Not Investigation Stay
Nov
06
2025

Court News

Delhi High Court Clarifies: ‘No Coercive Measures’ Protects Only Against Arrest, Not Investigation Stay
Read More
Supreme Court Orders Compensatory Plantation on 185 Acres in Delhi Ridge by March 2026
Nov
06
2025

Court News

Supreme Court Orders Compensatory Plantation on 185 Acres in Delhi Ridge by March 2026
Read More