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

2016 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 35

CHATTISGARH HIGH COURT
Sanjay K. Agarwal, J.
Kishan Kumar Lahre v. State of Chhattisgarh
Bail Application | Crime No. 112/2014



The court denied bail based on the minor's age and severity of the charges, emphasizing the protection of children under the law.

Headnote:The bail application was filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for the grant of bail concerning the applicant's arrest in Crime No. 112/2014 for offenses under Sections 363, 366, 376 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 5 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. The prosecution alleged that the accused abducted the minor prosecutrix and committed sexual intercourse. The applicant's counsel argued against the charges, claiming that the prosecutrix was a consenting adult and citing the delay in FIR filing. However, the court considered the minor's age at the offense and the case's gravity, ultimately deciding to reject the bail application as per Section 439 of Cr.P.C.

Table of Content
1. overview of the bail application and prosecution's case. (Para 1 , 2)
2. arguments presented by the defense and prosecution. (Para 3 , 4)
3. court's observations on the case circumstances. (Para 5 , 6)
4. final ruling on the bail application. (Para 7 , 8)

1. This is the first bail application filed under S.439 of the Code If of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 112/2014, registered at Police Station Kumhari, District Durg (C.G.), for the offence punishable under S.363, S.366, S.376 of Indian Penal Code and S.5, S.6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act .

2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that, on 20/05/2014 applicant is alleged to have abducted / kidnapped the minor prosecutrix and committed sexual intercourse with her.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that applicant has not committed any offence and has been falsely implicated in offence in question. He would further submit that prosecutrix is major and consenting party as such, there is delay in lodging the FIR as FIR has been lodged on 29/05/2014. He would lastly submit that charge sheet is yet to be filed and applicant is in jail since 20/07/2015, therefore, he may be released on jail.

4. On the other hand, learned State counsel would oppose the prayer for grant of bail and submit that prosecutrix was minor on the date of offence.

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

6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case; further taking into consideration the nature and gravity of offence and particularly, considering the age of prosecutrix who was said to be minor i.e. 16 years and 10 months on the date of offence, this Court is not inclined to release the applicant on regular bail.

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

8. Certified copy as per rules.
Order accordingly.

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 Back to top