Chattisgarh High Court
Dinesh Dewangan vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 29 April, 2022
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CRA No. 536 of 2022
• Dinesh Dewangan S/o Prahlad Dewangan Aged About 29 Years R/o
Village Chokawada, P.S. Nagarnar, District Bastar (Chhattisgarh),
District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh --- Appellant.
Versus
• State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station
Nagarnar, District Bastar (Chhattisgarh), District : Bastar(Jagdalpur),
Chhattisgarh --- Respondent.
CAUSE TITLE TAKEN FROM CIS PERIPHERY
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Appellant : Mr. Manish Nigam, Adv.
For Respondent/State : Mr. Alok Nigam, GA.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari
Order On Board
29.04.2022
The accused/appellant has filed this appeal under Section 14
(A) (2) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short the "SC/ST Act") for grant of anticipatory
bail in connection with Crime No.35/2022 registered at Police Station
Nagarnar, District Bastar for the offence punishable under Section 376
IPC and Section 3 (2) (v) of the SC/ST Act.
2. Prosecution case, in nutshell, is that the prosecutrix and the
appellant were in love affair since 2012. It is alleged that the appellant
on the pretext of marriage sexually exploited the prosecutrix since 7 th
June, 2015 and thereafter refused to marry her and now developed
relation with another woman and also kept her in his house. All this,
led to lodging of FIR under the aforesaid sections.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the prosecutrix
being a major and educated lady was a consenting party therefore, it
cannot be said that any sexual activity was done against her will or
without her consent. Prosecutrix was in love affair for about 7-8 years
therefore, the ingredients of offence under the SC/ST Act are not
attracted in any manner. Therefore, considering all these aspects, if
the appellant may be granted anticipatory bail, he would abide all
terms and conditions imposed on him.
4. Per contra, learned State counsel puts forth his vehement
opposition to the prayer for bail and submits that there is bar under
Section 18 and 18-A of the SC/ST Act therefore, this appeal is liable to
be rejected. Today the prosecutrix along with her mother appeared
through concerned DLSA and opposes the bail application.
5. Having considered the submission of parties, facts and
circumstances of the case particularly, considering that prosecutrix and
appellant were having relationship for a long period of time which
prima facice appears to be consensual, and taking into consideration
the judgment in the case of Sonu alias Subhash Kumar Vs. State of
UP and anr reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 181, this Court is of the
view that the accused/appellant can be granted anticipatory bail.
6. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and it is directed that in the
event of arrest of the appellant, on his furnishing a personal bond in
the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety for the like sum to the
satisfaction of the arresting Officer, he shall be released on
anticipatory bail on the following conditions:-
(a) he shall make himself available for interrogation by a police
officer as and when required,
(b) 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 or to any police
officer,
(c) he shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair
and expeditious trial,
(d) he shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date
given to them by the said Court till disposal of the trial,
(e) he shall not involve himself in any offence of similar nature in
future.
(f) he shall not contact with the prosecutrix in any manner.
Sd/-
(Deepak Kumar Tiwari)
Judge
Ajay
