Chattisgarh High Court
Umesh Nishad vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 8 July, 2022
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
MCRCA No. 466 of 2022
Umesh Nishad S/o Heeradhar Nishad, Aged About 28 Years R/o
Village Navadih Tetla P.S. And Tehsil Pusour District Raigarh
Chhattisgarh.
---- Applicant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Chakradharnagar
Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh
--- Respondent
For the Applicant :- Shri Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate
For the State :- Shri Kunal Das, P.L.
_____________________________________________________
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput,
Order on Board
08.07.2022
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. 143/2022
registered at Police Station Chakradharnagar Raigarh, District Raigarh,
CG for the offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC.
2. Case of the prosecution that the prosecutrix made a complaint
stating therein that she is aged about 25 yers and was working as Staff
Nurse in Metro Hospital, Raigarh an the applicant is also working there
in Radiologist Department as Technician and due to which they came in
contact with each other and both are having love affair. Thereafter on
05/05/2021 the applicant has committed sexual intercourse on the
pretext of marriage with her thereafter they are having love affair and
they are having physical relation with each other. On 06/02/2022 the
applicant got married with another girl thereafter on 23/02/2022 she
lodged the report against the applicant.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that there is no
promise was ever offered by the applicant herein for marriage and there
is nothing on record from the FIR does not reflect that from very
inception the applicant was not inclined to fulfill his promise with regard
to the marriage with the prosecutrix. His next submission is that
prosecutrix aged about 26 years and she is well educated lady and the
applicant and prosecutrix both are working in same hospital and
thereafter they developed love relationship that the intercourse has
taken place this would be a consensual in nature. He further submits
that earlier also prosecutrix has made an FIR against two persons one
in the year 2014 and another in the year 2019. Copy of these two
earlier FIR is also been annexed as Annexure A/2 and also submit that
in one of the earlier FIR after trial the accused persons in those earlier
FIR has also been acquitted, therefore it appears that the instant FIR
has been lodged in order to harass the applicant to extract the money
from the applicant. The applicant is a Radiologist in Metro Hospital,
Raigarh and there is no possibility of his absconding or tempering with
the evidence, he is ready and willing to abide by the condition which
likely to be imposed by this Court while granting bail. In support of his
submission Shri Agrawal, learned counsel for the applicant has relied
upon the judgment of 'Deepak Gulati vs. State of Haryana' reported
in (2013) 7 SCC 675 and 'Pramod Suryabhan Pawar vs. State of
Maharashtra and Another' reported in (2019) 9 SCC 608
4. On the other hand learned State counsel opposes the application
for anticipatory bail. He submits that the prosecutrix in her statement
under Section 161 of CrPC has leveled serious allegations against the
applicant, therefore, the fact with regard to whether promise to marry
was false from the very inception it is to be determined at the stage of
trial is not at the stage of grant of bail, therefore the application
deserves to be rejected.
5. Heard learned counsel for both sides.
6. Having considered the rival submissions and contentions raised
at the bar, looking to the fact that the prosecutrix is aged about 26
years, the relationship between the prosecutrix and applicant continued
for 6-7 months and even otherwise stoppage of relationship on
23/02/2022 and FIR was lodged on 08/03/2022, considering the fact
that earlier also two FIR was lodged by the prosecutrix against different
persons and in one of the case the person has also been acquitted,
copy of the judgment has already filed by the applicant, State counsel
not in a position to dispute this fact.
7. Looking to the totality of the circumstances and relying upon the
judgment of Supreme Court, this Court finds it to be a fit case for grant
of anticipatory bail to him. 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.50,000/- with one surety for the like
sum to the satisfaction of the arresting officer or the Court concerned,
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
Sd/-
(Sachin Singh Rajput)
Judge
Kamde
