Indrajeet Sinha vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2021 Latest Caselaw 2508 Chatt

                                            1

                                   Cr.A. No. 371 of 2021



                                                                              NAFR
                  HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                            Criminal Appeal No. 371 of 2021
      Indrajeet Sinha S/o. Ramchandra Sinha aged about 24 years, residing at
       Village Mailawada (Kalarpara) P.S. Kuwakonda District South Bastar
       Dantewada (C.G.)
                                                                   ---- Appellant
                                     Versus
      State of Chhattisgarh, Through: The P.S. Adim Jati Kalyan Thana
       Dantewada District South Bastar Dantewada (C.G.)
                                                          ----State/Respondent

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

                   Hon'ble Shri Justice Gautam Chourdiya, J
                             Judgment on Board
23.09.2021

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 08.03.2021 passed by the Special Judge,

ST/SC, Act, South Bastar, Dantewada (C.G.), rejecting his regular bail under

Section 439 Cr.P.C. The appellant is in jail since 06.03.2021 in connection

with Crime No. 03/2021 for the offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC

and Section 3 (1) (2) (v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, registered at Police Station- Adim Jati

Kalyan Thana, Dantewada, District South Bastar Dantewada (C.G.).

2. As per prosecution story, the prosecutrix lodged a report stating that in the

year 2019, the appellant took her to Village Balood in the house of his friend

Dinesh Yadav and on the pretext of marriage, he committed sexual

intercourse with her in his friend's house. Thereafter, the appellant many

times took the prosecutrix to his relatives' house and committed sexual

intercourse with her. When the prosecutrix asked the appellant to marry her,

then he refused to marry her. On the basis of said report, the offences under

Cr.A. No. 371 of 2021

the aforementioned sections were registered against the appellant.

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

falsely implicated in this crime. He submits that the appellant is in jail since

06.03.2021 and due to Covid-19, conclusion of the trial is likely to take some

time, therefore, the appellant may be released on bail. Reliance has been

placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pramod

Suryabhan Pawar vs. State of Maharashtra and Another reported in

(2019) 9 SCC 608 and judgment dated 19.01.2021 passed by this Court in

Mohinder Pal Kashyap vs. State of Chhattisgarh, Cr.A. No. 919/2020.

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

5. Prosecutrix is connected through video conferencing from District Legal

Services Authority, Dantewada and she was identified by an employee of

DLSA, Dantewada. Prosecutrix stated that she is ready to perform marriage

with the appellant. But, when the prosecutrix went to jail to meet the

appellant, the appellant stated her that merely for the purpose of obtaining

bail, he had expressed his willingness to perform marriage with her but he is

not willing to marry her. Therefore, she has objection to grant of bail to the

appellant by this Court.

6. As per documents filed along with the covering memo by the appellant's

counsel, it is seen that during counseling at Sakhi One Stop Centre,

Datewada, the appellant and the prosecutrix had consented for marriage.

From the order dated 27.8.2021 of this Court, it is apparent that on the

submission of learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is ready to

perform marriage with the prosecutrix and the willingness being expressed

by the prosecutrix also for marrying the appellant, both of them were

directed to make an application in this regard before the trial Court. In

compliance of the said order, though the prosecutrix submitted an

Cr.A. No. 371 of 2021

application before the trial Court for marrying the appellant, the trial Court

rejected the application of the prosecutrix. However, despite the appellant

willingly stating before this Court as also before Sakhi One Centre for

marrying the prosecutrix no such application was filed before the trial Court.

7. From the case diary, it is also seen that the appellant used to take the

prosecutrix to the houses of his relatives/acquaintances namely Dinesh

Yadav, Tulsidas Nag etc. and introduced her to them as his wife and

established physical relations with her.

8. During video conferencing, the prosecutrix stated that when she visited the

appellant in jail, he told her that only for the purpose of securing bail, a

statement was made by his counsel on his behalf before this Court that he is

ready to marry her whereas he does not want to marry her. Therefore, she

has raised objection to release of the appellant on bail.

9. Thus, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the fact that the

appellant subjected the prosecutrix, a tribal girl, to forcible sexual intercourse

on the pretext of marriage on number of times; during counseling at Sakhi

One Stop Centre the appellant also agreed to marry her; a statement was

also made on his behalf before this Court that he is ready to marry her and

despite there being direction by this Court, though the prosecutrix filed an

application before the trial Court for marrying the appellant but no such

application was filed by him; the statement of the prosecutrix that when she

visited the appellant in jail, he refused to marry her, and her objection to

release of the appellant on bail; the overall conduct of the appellant during

commission of the offence and subsequent thereto; the judgments relied

upon by appellant's counsel being distinguishable on facts from the case of

the present appellant, without commenting anything on merits of case, this

Court is not inclined to release the appellant on bail. The order impugned of

Cr.A. No. 371 of 2021

the trial Court rejecting the appellant's bail application does not suffer from

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

substance is hereby dismissed.

Sd/-

(Gautam Chourdiya) Judge vatti