Kallu Rayakwar @ Santosh Rayakwar vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2021 Latest Caselaw 1583 Chatt

                                           1
                      Cr.A. No. 453 of 2021 & Cr.A. No. 539 of 2021

                                                                                 NAFR
                   HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                      (Proceeding through Video Conferencing)
                            Criminal Appeal No. 453 of 2021
      Kallu Rayakwar @ Santosh Rayakwar son of Ajuddin Rayakwar, aged about
       25 years, Caste-Rayakwar, resident of Bamnaura, Police Station-
       Bamnaura, Tahsil-Badamlahra, District Chhatarpur (M.P.)
                                                                          ---- Appellant
                                       Versus
      State of Chhattisgarh, Through: the Station House Officer, Police Station,
       Kansabel, District Jashpur (C.G.)
                                                                  ---- State/Respondent

And Criminal Appeal No. 539 of 2021

1. Deshraj Kushwaha son of Hariram, aged about 28 years, Caste-Kushwaha, resident of Mandaura Rangaon, Police Station-Mandaura, Tahsil-Lalitpur, District-Lalitpur (U.P.)

2. Mardan Munna son of Somna, aged about 40 years, Caste-Kushwaha, resident of Sirom, Police Station-Mandaura, Tahsil Lalitpur, District Lalitpur (U.P.)

3. Santosh Kushwaha son of Tula Kushwaha, aged about 45 years, Caste- Kushwaha, resident of Khiriya, Police Station- Banpur, Choki-Kachnauda, Tahsil- Lalitpur, District Lalitpur (U.P.)

4. Babloo Kushwaha son of Santosh Kushwaha, aged about 22 years, Caste- Kushwaha, resident of Khirya, Police Station-Banpur, Chowki-Kachnauda, Tahsil-Lalitpur, District-Lalitpur (U.P.)

---- Appellants Versus  State of Chhattisgarh, Through : the Station House Officer, Police Station, Kansabel, District-Jashpur (C.G.)

---- State/Respondent

For Appellants : Shri Sanjeev Kumar Sahu, Advocate For Respondent/State : Shri Adil Minhaz, Government Advocate

Hon'ble Shri Justice Gautam Chourdiya, J Judgment on Board

05.08.2021

1. As above both the appeals by the respective accused/appellant(s) under

Section 14A (2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention

Cr.A. No. 453 of 2021 & Cr.A. No. 539 of 2021

of Atrocities) Act, 1989 are directed against the different orders dated

18.03.2021 & 06.05.2021 passed by the Special Judge, constituted under

Section 14 of Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities)

Act, 1989, in Special Case No. 16/2021, rejecting their regular bail

applications under Section 439 Cr.P.C., they are being disposed of by this

common order.

2. The above appellants are in jail since 06.02.2021 in connection with Crime

No. 53/2020 for the offence punishable under Sections 386, 364(A), 370, 34

& 341 of IPC and Section 3 (2) (v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled

Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, registered in Police Station

Kansabel, District Jashpur (C.G.).

3. As per prosecution case, the accused person including the present above

appellants have abducted the prosecutrix and Vikram Sai.

Accused/appellants took the prosecutrix and Vikram Sai at Chhatarppur

(M.P.) and pressurized them for brining money from their parents. It is further

alleged that the accused persons have sold the prosecutrixx to Santosh

Kushwaha for marry with Babloo Kushwaha (son of Santosh Kushwaha). It

is further alleged that on 10.09.2020, the prosecutrix has committed suicide

in the house of Babloo Kushwaha. On report being lodged to the above

effect, offence under the aforesaid sections as mentioned in para-2 has been

registered against the present appellants.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants are the

innocent persons and have been falsely implicated in this case. He submits

that the appellants are in jail since 06.02.2021, charge-sheet has been filed

and conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, therefore, the

appellants may be released on bail.

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

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

Cr.A. No. 453 of 2021 & Cr.A. No. 539 of 2021

7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, considering the

allegation made against all the appellants, they alongwith other co-accused

persons involved in human trafficking and they were selling the prosecutrix

who is a tribal lady, the fact that charges have been framed against the

appellants, without commenting anything on merits of the case, this Court is

not inclined to release the appellant on bail. The orders impugned of the trial

Court rejecting the appellants' bail applications do not suffer from any

illegality or perversity. Accordingly, the present appeals being without any

substance are hereby dismissed.

Sd/-

(Gautam Chourdiya) Judge

vatti