Chattisgarh High Court
Dr. Subhash Chand Bandhe vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 4 August, 2022
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
MCRCA No. 816 of 2022
Dr. Subhash Chand Bandhe S/o Late Shri Jagdish Bandhe Aged
About 36 Years R/o Village Arand, P.O. Basin, Police Station
Rajim, District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh.
---- Applicant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Dornapal, District :
Sukuma, Chhattisgarh.
--- Respondent
For the Applicant :- Shri Pragalbha Sharma, Advocate
For the State :- Ms. Shivali Dubey, P.L.
For the Objector :- Shri Vinay Nagdev, Advocate
_____________________________________________________
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput,
Order on Board
04.08.2022
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.18/2022
registered at Police Station Dornapal, District Sukma, CG for the
offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC.
2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that a written complaint was
received to the Police of Police Station Dornapal by the prosecutrix
alleging therein that the applicant has committed sexual intercourse
with her in pretext of marriage between September 2021 to February
2022.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that there was an
agreement executed between the applicant and complainant, which has
been filed as Annexure-O/1. Applicant and complainant both are doctor
aged about 36 years and 30 years respectively. He further submits that
applicant is ready and willing to comply and honor of the agreement
which has been executed between the parties on 31 st March 2022. He
also submits that the applicant never refused to marry with the
complaint in fact his father has passed away, therefore he could not
marry with the complainant. In the meanwhile the complainant lodged a
report in the month of April. 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 categorical 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. Counsel for the objector submits that according to instructions
received from the victim she is ready and willing to marry with the
applicant. At this stage Shri Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant
submits that applicant is also ready and willing to marry with the
complainant, however since his father has passed away this year only
he is seeking sometime for the same.
6. Heard learned counsel for both sides.
7. Taking into totality of the facts and circumstances of the case,
looking to the age of the applicant and complainant, period of
relationship between the applicant and complainant 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 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.
Sd/-
(Sachin Singh Rajput)
Judge
Kamde
