SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

CHANDRA DHARI SINGH
Chotu @ Suneel Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Applicant:Gauri Suwan Pandey, Anita, Advocate
For the Opp. Parties: G.A.

JUDGMENT

Chandra Dhari Singh, J.—The present application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in FIR No.238 of 2021, under Sections 354, 504, 506, 376D IPC & Section 7/8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, P.S. Misrikh, District Sitapur.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is innocent and has not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR. He has been falsely implicated due to enmity. It is submitted that initially the FIR was registered under Sections 354, 504, 506 IPC & Section 7/8 of POCSO Act, however, after recording statement of the prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr.P.C., Section 376D IPC has been added.

3. It is submitted that earlier the applicant’s side registered an NCR bearing No.38 of 2021 dated 16.03.2021 under Sections 323 & 504 IPC at P.S. Mishrit, District Sitapur against one Ramkhelawan (father of complainant of the present case), therefore, the instant criminal proceeding has been initiated by the complainant only to harass the applicant and force him to settle the aforesaid NCR case. It is also submitted that Section 376D IPC has also been added on the pressure of the complainant.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top