Vijay Ambasth vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2021 Latest Caselaw 1269 Chatt

                                            1
                                   Cr.A. No. 505 of 2021

                                                                                NAFR
                   HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                       (Proceeding through Video Conferencing)
                               Criminal Appeal No. 505 of 2021
      Vijay Ambasth S/o Late Satyanarayan Ambasth, Aged 42 years, R/o Pathak
       Gali Bhattiroad Kedarpur, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.)
                                                                        ---- Appellant
                                        Versus
      State of Chhattisgarh, through the District Magistrate Ambikapur, District
       Surguja (C.G.)
                                                               ---- Respondent/State

  For Appellant            :       Shri Sanjay Pathak, Advocate

  For Respondent/State :           Shri Anand Verma, Deputy Government Advocate


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

20.07.2021

1. This appeal by the accused/appellant under Section 14(A) (2) of the

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

is directed against the order dated 24.03.2021 passed by the Special Judge

(Atrocities) Act, Surguja Ambikapur (C.G.) in Bail Application No. 237/2021,

rejecting his regular bail. The appellant is in jail since 09.03.2021 in

connection with Crime No. 05/2021 for the offence punishable under

Sections 376 (2) (n), 294 & 506 of IPC and Sections 3(2) (v) & 3 (1) (r) (s) of

the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)

Act, registered at Police Station- Ajak, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.).

2. Prosecution story in brief is that the prosecutrix aged about 30 years and the

appellant are well known to each other since the year 2010. On 27.02.2010

the appellant met the prosecutrix in her house and he made physical

relations with the prosecutrix against her will. Thereafter, the appellant on

promise of marriage continuously established forcible sexual relations with

Cr.A. No. 505 of 2021

the prosecutrix, but subsequently he refused to marry her. Therefore, the

prosecutrix lodged the F.I.R. on 09.03.2021 against the appellant at Police

Station Ajak Abmbikapur (C.G.)

3. As per State counsel, notice has been served upon the victim/prosecutrix,

but neither the prosecutrix is present nor is there any representation on her

behalf.

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

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

the prosecutrix are major, both were having physical relations from

the year 2010 to 16.02.2021. He further submits that the prosecutrix was a

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

with the appellant for about 10-11 years. He submits that the appellant has

no criminal antecedents, he is in jail since 09.03.2021 and due to Covid-19

pandemic, conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time. Therefore, the

appellant be released on bail.

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

submits that on pretext of marriage, the appellant committed forcible sexual

intercourse with the prosecutrix, therefore, the learned trial Court rightly

rejected the bail application of 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 were having physical relations since the year

2010 and thereafter continuously both were having physical relations till

16.02.2021, the prosecutrix lodged the FIR after 10-11 years of the incident

against the appellant, on 27.02.2010 first physical relation was allegedly

made by the appellant with the prosecutix, there is long delay for about 10-

11 years in lodging the F.I.R. and no report was lodged or any complaint was

made during this period, and that the appellant is in jail since 09.03.2021,

Cr.A. No. 505 of 2021

conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, the appellant has no

criminal antecedents as admitted by both the counsel, without expressing

any opinion on the 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 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