Chattisgarh High Court
Kaushlendra Kumar Rajwade vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 8 September, 2021
Page 1 of 3
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CRA No. 768 of 2021
1.
Kaushlendra Kumar Rajwade S/o Ramkeshwar Rajwade, Aged
About 22 Years, R/o Village Tilsiwa, P.S. Surajpur, District
Surajpur (C.G).
----Appellant
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Police Station A.J.K. District
Surajpur (C.G.).
---- Non-Appellant
For Appellant : Mr. Anshul Tiwari, Advocate.
For Non-Appellant/State : Mr. Adil Minhaj, Govt. Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Gautam Chourdiya
Judgment On Board
08/09/2021
1) This appeal by the accused/appellant under Section 14A of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 is directed against the order dated
15/07/2021 passed by the Special Judge (Atrocity), Surajpur,
District Surajpur (C.G.), rejecting his regular bail under Section
439 Cr.P.C. The appellant is in jail since 16/06/2021 in
connection with Crime No. 11/2021 for the offence punishable
under Sections 450 & 376 of Indian Penal Code and under
Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 registered at Police Station
AJK, District Surajpur (C.G.).
2) Allegation against the present appellant is that on 27/02/2021 he
committed forcible sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix and at
that time husband of the prosecutrix had gone to his Grocery
shop. On report being lodged to the above effect, the aforesaid
offence has been registered against the applicant.
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 16/06/2021 and
conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time due to COVID-
19 Pandemic. Therefore, the appellant be released on bail.
4) On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the
bail application.
5) Prosecutrix is present through video conferencing with the aid of
District Legal Services Authority, Surajpur with her Counsel who
identified her. The prosecutrix vehemently objected to grant of
bail to the appellant.
6) Heard learned counsel for the parties.
7) Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the age of
the prosecutrix i.e. 21 years, she is a major, the appellant and
the prosecutrix were known to each other as they were
neighbour, statement of the husband of the prosecutrix that
when he returned from shop he saw that both were in
compromising position, inordinate delay in lodging FIR, detention
period of the appellant who is 22 years old, the fact that there is
no apprehension of the appellant tampering with the evidence or
absconding as admitted by both the counsel and that conclusion
of trial is likely to take some time due to COVID-19 Pandemic,
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. 1,00,000/- with two sureties of Rs. 50,000/- 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,
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 strictly follow the COVID-19 protocol issued by the
Central Govt./State Govt./Local Authority,
v. he shall not involve himself in any offence of similar nature
in future,
Let a copy of this order be forwarded to the concerned
Police Station forthwith who shall inform the trial Court in the
event of appellant involving himself in similar offence in future.
-Sd/-
(Gautam Chourdiya)
Judge
Chandrakant
