SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Umeshram Chauhan vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 27 July, 2021

Try out our Premium Member services: Virtual Legal Assistant, Query Alert Service and an ad-free experience. Free for one month and pay only if you like it.



MCRC No. 2302 of 2021

• Umeshram Chauhan, S/o Late Ghasiram, Aged About 64 Years,
Residing At Baradwar Ward No 04, Police Station Baradwar, District-
Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh.

—- Applicant


• State of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station Baradwar District
Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh., District-Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh

—- Respondent

For Applicant : Mr. P.K. Tulsyan, Advocate.
For State/respondent : Mr. Alok Nigam, Govt. Advocate.
For Complainant : Mr. Anand Gupta, Advocate.

Hon’ble Shri Justice Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant
Order On Board


1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 439 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 on behalf of the applicant for grant of regular

bail to him as he is in custody in connection with Crime No.14/2021

registered at Police-Station-Baradwar, District-Janjgir Champa(C.G.)

for the offence punishable under Sections 376/511, 450 of IPC and

Section 8 of POCSO Act, 2012.

2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant, that the

applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. The statement of

prosecutrix under Section 164 CrPC reveals that the act of the

applicant amount to offence under Section 354 IPC only, therefore, no

case is made out for offence of attempt to rape, which has been falsely

registered against him. Applicant is 64 years old man. He is in jail

since 11.01.2021. Charge-sheet has been filed, therefore, it is prayed

that this applicant may be enlarged on regular bail.

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

application and the submission made in this respect. It is submitted

that the age of the victim had been only 14 years and there a clear

statement of the prosecutrix under Section 161 CrPC against this

applicant, therefore, the application be rejected.

4. The prosecutrix is virtually present before this Court through the ‘Help

Desk’ of High Court on notice. She has stated that she has no

objection in grant of bail to this applicant.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the

case diary.

6. As per prosecution case, it is alleged that on the date of incident this

applicant caught hold of the minor prosecutrix aged 14 years and then

attempted to rape her regarding, which FIR has been lodged.

7. Considered on the submissions. In her statement under Section 164

CrPC prosecutrix has stated that the applicant had removed her

undergarments, when her mother arrived on the spot, subsequent to

which the applicant fled from the spot. Further, looking to the statement

of no objection from the complainant side, I feel inclined to allow the

application of this applicant.

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

allowed. It is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail on his

furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in

the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court, for his

appearance as and when directed.


(Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2023 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation