Chattisgarh High Court
Santosh Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 13 April, 2021
Page 1 of 3
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CRA No. 207 of 2021
1. Santosh Sahu S/o Laxmi Narayan Sahu, Aged About 24 Years
R/o Khada, Police Station Patna, District Korea (C.G.).
----Appellant
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through the In-charge Adim Jati Kalyan
Thana (AJK), Baikunthpur, District Korea (C.G.).
---- Respondent
For Appellant : Mr. S.S. Rajput, Advocate.
For Respondent/State : Mr. Dinesh R.K. Tiwari, Dy. Govt. Advocate.
For Objector : Mr. Akhand Pratap Pandey, Advocate.
Hon'ble Justice Shri Gautam Chourdiya
Judgment On Board
13/04/2021
1) This appeal by the accused/appellant under Section 14(A)(ii) of
the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 is directed against the order dated
20/01/2021 passed by the Special Judge, S.C.S.T (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, Baikunthpur, District Korea (C.G.), refusing to
allow his regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The appellant is
in jail since 07/01/2021 in connection with Crime No. 01/2021 for
the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(<) of Indian Penal
Code and under Section 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 registered
at Police Station Adim Jati Kalyan Thana (AJK), Baikunthpur,
District Korea (C.G.).
2) Allegation against the present appellant is that he was having
forcible sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix, the scheduled
tribe widow lady, on pretext of marriage for the last about 4 years
prior to lodging of FIR, as a result of which she births a child in
the Month of December 2020. When the prosecutrix asked the
appellant to marry her, he refused to marry her. On report being
lodged to the above effect, offence has been registered against
the present appellant.
3) Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is
an innocent person and has been falsely implicated in this case.
He submits that the appellant is in jail since 07/01/2021, charge
sheet has been filed and conclusion of the trial is likely to take
some time. Therefore, the appellant be released on bail.
4) On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/State
opposes the bail application.
5) Prosecutrix appeared in person on 31/03/2021 before this Court
and raised no objection to release of the appellant on bail.
Learned Counsel for the Objector raised no objection today to
grant of bail to the appellant.
6) Heard learned counsel for the parties & perused the case dairy.
7) Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the fact
that the prosecutrix is a major widow lady having 3 children,
prosecutrix and the appellant having physical relation between
them for the last 4 years prior to lodging of FIR, no objection
raised by the prosecutrix on the last date of hearing, the
detention period of the appellant who is 24 years old, charge
sheet has already been filed, and that conclusion of trial is likely
to take some time, without commenting anything on merits of the
case, this Court is of the opinion that present is a fit case for
grant of bail to the appellant. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.
It is directed that in the event of appellant executing a personal
bond for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties of Rs. 25,000/-
each to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court, he shall be
released on bail on the following conditions:-
i. he shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement,
threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts
of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such fact
to the Court,
ii. he shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to
fair and expeditious trial, and
iii. he shall appear before the trial Court on each and every
date given to him by the said Court till disposal of the trial.
iv. he shall not involve himself in any offence of similar nature
in future.
-Sd/-
(Gautam Chourdiya)
Judge
Chandrakant
