Nitin Yadav vs The State Of Chhattisgarh
2021 Latest Caselaw 1786 Chatt

                                                1
                                     Cr.A. No. 751 of 2021

                                                                                      NAFR
                     HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                        (Proceeding through Video Conferencing)
                                 Criminal Appeal No. 751 of 2021
      Nitin Yadav, aged about 20 years, S/o Haresh Yadav, R/o Near Ranchandi
       Mandir, Ward No. 11, Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.)
                                                                    ---- Appellant
                                    Versus
      The State of Chhattisgarh, Through Police Station Dongargarh, District
       Rajanandgaon (C.G.)
                                                          ---- Respondent/State

  For Appellant              :       Shri Parag Kotecha, Advocate
  For Respondent/State :             Shri Adil Minhaz, Government Advocate



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

16.08.2021

1. This appeal by the accused/appellant under Section 14(A) of the Scheduled

Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is directed

against the order dated 05.07.2021 passed by the Special Judge

(Atrocities ), District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) in Special Sessions Case No.

14/2021, rejecting his regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The appellant

is in jail since 10.03.2021 in connection with Crime No. 141/2021 for the

offence punishable under Sections 376 & 376 (2) of IPC and Section 3 (2)

(v-a) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of

Atrocities) Act, registered at Police Station- Dongargarh, District

Rajnandgaon (C.G.).

2. Allegation against the present appellant is that the appellant committed

sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix on the pretext of marriage, who

belongs to reserve category. Hence, offence under the aforesaid Sections as

mentioned in para-1 of this judgment registered against the appellant.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has been

Cr.A. No. 751 of 2021

falsely implicated in this case. He also submits that both the appellant, aged

about 20 years, and the prosecutrix, aged 20 years, are major and both

were having physical relations. He further submits that the prosecutrix was a

consenting party to the act of the appellant as she had physical relations

with the appellant since last one year and she lodged the F.I.R. on

09.03.2021. He also submits that the appellant is in jail since 10.03.2021,

charge-sheet has been filed and due to Covid-19 pandemic, 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 State opposes the appeal and

submit that the learned trial Court rightly rejected the bail application of the

appellant.

5. Prosecutrix is connected through video conferencing from District Legal

Services Committee, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) and stated that she has objection

to grant of bail to the appellant by this Court and she is not ready to marry

with the appellant.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the fact that the

prosecutrix and the appellant are major, both are acquainted with each other

near about five years and both were having physical relations since last one

year, the prosecutrix lodged the FIR on 09.03.2021 against the appellant,

there is long delay in lodging the F.I.R. and no report was lodged or any

complaint was made during this period, further that the appellant is ready to

marry with the prosecutrix but she denied to marry with him, she has

objection to grant of bail to the appellant by this Court, and that the

appellant is in jail since 10.03.2021, charge-sheet has already been filed,

conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, without expressing any

opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that present is a

Cr.A. No. 751 of 2021

fit case for grant of bail to the appellant. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed

and the impugned order is set aside.

8. It is directed that in the event of appellant executing a personal bond for a

sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties of Rs.50,000/- 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.

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. v. he shall strictly follow the Covid-19 protocol issued by the Central Govt./State Govt./Local Authority.

Sd/-

(Gautam Chourdiya) Judge vatti