Chattisgarh High Court
Prashant Khunte vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 3 August, 2022
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
MCRCA No. 844 of 2022
Prashant Khunte S/o L. Prasad Aged About 26 Years R/o Village
Rahaud, P.S. Shivrinarayan, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.).
---- Applicant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station Shivrinarayan,
District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.).
--- Respondent
For the Applicant :- Shri C.P. Lahre, Advocate
For the State :- Shri R.C.S. Deo, P.L.
_____________________________________________________
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput,
Order on Board
03.08.2022
1. This first anticipatory bail application under Section 438 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the accused/applicant
who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.16/2021
registered at Police Station Shivrinarayan, District Janjgir-Champa, CG
for the offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC.
2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that complainant has lodged a
report against the present applicant that between 17/08/2019 to
24/09/2020, the applicant has committed sexual intercourse with her in
pretext of marriage.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the prosecutrix is
major lady and 23 years old, she has falsely implicated the applicant in
the present case, he is ready to comply the order of this Court, hence
he may be released on bail. He relies upon the judgment of
Maheshwar Tigga vs. State of Jharkhand, (2020) 10 SCC 108,
Pramod Suryabhan Pawar vs. State of Maharashtra & another,
2019 (9) SCC 608 and Sonu @ Subhash Kumar vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh & Another, Criminal Appeal No. 233 of 2021.
4. On the other hand learned State counsel opposes the application
for anticipatory bail and submits that there is several allegations have
been leveled by the prosecutrix against the present applicant, he may
be required for custodial interrogation to the applicant, hence he may
not be granted bail.
5. Heard learned counsel for both sides.
6. Looking to the age of the prosecutrix, nature of allegations,
period of relationship between the applicant and prosecutrix and also
considering the case of Maheshwar Tigga vs. State of Jharkhand,
(2020) 10 SCC 108, Pramod Suryabhan Pawar vs. State of
Maharashtra & another, 2019 (9) SCC 608 and Sonu @ Subhash
Kumar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, Criminal Appeal No. 233
of 2021, without commenting anything on merits, this Court is inclined
to benefit of Section 438 of CrPC to the applicant. Accordingly, the
application is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the
applicant in connection with the aforesaid offence, he shall be released
on bail 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, on
the following conditions:-
(a) he shall make himself available for
interrogation by the concerned police officer as and
when so 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 them 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) After filing of the charge-sheet, he shall
appear before the trial Court on each and every
date given to him by the said Court till disposal of
the trial,
(e) he shall not involve himself in any offence
of similar nature in future
(f) If any of the conditions is violated by the
applicant, the victim / State / complainant will
be at liberty to move an application for
cancellation of bail.
It is made clear that these observations are only for the purposes
of deciding the bail application. The trial Court will decide the
case on its own merits without being influenced by any
observation made herein-above.
It is directed that the applicant will appear before the
Investigating Officer for co-operating in the investigation on
29/08/2022.
Sd/-
(Sachin Singh Rajput)
Judge
Kamde
