Manharan Rathore vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2021 Latest Caselaw 1288 Chatt

                                             1
                                    Cr.A. No. 576 of 2021

                                                                                 NAFR
                   HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                        (Proceeding through Video Conferencing)
                                Criminal Appeal No. 576 of 2021
      Manharan Rathore, S/o Ramcharan Rathore, Age 47 years, R/o Village -
       Mahka, Thana & Chowky - Kharsiya, District Raigarh (C.G.)
                                                                   ---- Appellant
                                     Versus
      State of Chhattisgarh, through Police Station - Kharsiya, District Raigarh
       (C.G.)
                                                          ---- Respondent/State

  For Appellant             :       Shri Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate
  For Respondent/State :            Shri K.K. Singh, Government Advocate
  For Objector              :       Shri Dheerendra Pandey, Advocate



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

22.07.2021

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 24.02.2021 passed by the Special Judge

(Atrocities Act), Raigarh (C.G.) in Special Criminal Case under the Atrocities

Act No. 291/2021, rejecting his regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The

appellant is in jail since 11.02.2021 in connection with Crime No. 77/2021 for

the offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC and Sections 3(1) (w) (1) &

3 (2) (v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of

Atrocities) Act, registered at Police Station- Kharsiya, District Raigarh (C.G.).

2. Prosecution story in brief is that the prosecutrix is a married lady aged 27

years. She resides with her husband and children. On 10.02.2021, the

prosecutrix lodged the report stating that in the month of August 2018, the

appellant frequently visited the shop which is situated in front of her house

and he used to gamble (satta) in his mobile. During that time the appellant

asked water from the prosecutrix for drinking purpose and she gave water

Cr.A. No. 576 of 2021

because they are living in same village. It is further alleged that one day, the

appellant asked for her contact number and she gave her number, then both

started talking in mobile with each other. It is also alleged that in the year

2019 the prosecutrix borrowed money of Rs.10,000/0- from the appellant,

but she did not return the money. Thereafter, on 05.07.2019, the appellant

committed forcible sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix and made her

obscene video in his mobile. In the month of August 2020, they were

quarelling with each other and the prosecutrix snatched the mobile from the

appellant but the appellant called his son and abused her by using filthy

language and took back the mobile from the prosecutrix. At that time

husband of the prosecutrix reached there. Thereafter, the F.I.R. has been

registered against the appellant on 10.02.2021.

3. 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

05.07.2019 to 25.02.2020. 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 long time and there is long delay for about one &

half years in lodging the F.I.R. He submits that the appellant has no criminal

antecedents, the appellant is in jail since 11.02.2021, 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 as well as learned counsel

for the objector oppose the appeal and submit that the appellant committed

forcible sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix, therefore, the learned trial

Court rightly rejected the bail application of the appellant.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

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

Cr.A. No. 576 of 2021

prosecutrix and the appellant are major and both were having physical

relations since the year 2019 and thereafter continuously both were having

physical relations till 25.02.2020, the prosecutrix lodged the FIR on

10.02.2021 against the appellant, on 05.07.2019 first physical relation was

allegedly made by the appellant with the prosecutix, there is long delay for

about one & half 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

11.02.2021, charge-sheet has already been filed, conclusion of the trial is

likely to take some time, the appellant has no criminal antecedents as

admitted by both the counsel, further considering that only one mobile has

been seized by the police from the appellant and no obscene video of the

prosecutrix or any photographs were seized from him, 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.

7. 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/- 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