Vijay Kumar Kanwar vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 4385 Chatt

                                           1




                                                                             NAFR
                   HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                             Criminal Appeal No. 106 of 2022

      Vijay Kumar Kanwar son of Shivlal, aged about 29 years, Residence of
       Magamar, Thana Deepka, Tahsil Katghora, District - Korba (C.G.)
                                                                    ---- Appellant



                                       Versus

      State of Chhattisgarh, through District Magistrate Korba, District Korba,
       through Police Station - Deepka, District Korba (C.G.)
                                                              ----State/Respondent

  For Appellant                :   Shri Vikas Pandey, Advocate

  For Respondent /State        :   Shri Kashif Shakeel, Deputy Advocate General

                    Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput
                              Judgment on Board


11.07.2022

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 12.10.2021 passed by the First Upper

Sessions Judge Katghora, District Korba (C.G.) in Bail Case No. 401/2021,

rejecting his regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The appellant is in jail

since 16.09.2021 in connection with Crime No. 279/2021 registered at Police

Station- Deepka, District Korba (C.G.) for the offence punishable under

Sections 376 (D), 342, 346, 365, 366 read with Section 34 of IPC and

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

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

2. Prosecution case in brief is that on 14.09.2021 complainant (father of the

prosecutrix) lodged a report alleging that her daughter went to the boring to

fetch water and she did not return to home. During investigation, on

15.09.2021 the prosecutrix was recovered and her statement was recorded

by Mahila Police Officer. In her statement, she stated that on the date of

incident, she went to the boring to fetch, at that time, Balla Markan, Hiralal

Yadav and Vijay Kanwar came there, caught hold of her, they dragged her

to house of Vijay and committed forcible sexual intercourse course against

her will one after another. Hence, on report being lodged to the above effect,

the aforesaid offences have been registered against the present appellant

and other co-accused persons.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that prosecution case is totally

false, the prosecutrix is major, aged about 28 years, and the appellant has

been falsely implicated in this case by the prosecutrix. He further submits

that at the time of incident, the appellant was not present. He also submits

that the appellant is in jail since 16.09.2021 and conclusion of the trial is

likely to take some time. Therefore, the appellant be released on bail.

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

submits that there is ample evidence against the appellant. He further

submits that statements of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 161 &

164 Cr.P.C. are against the appellant.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

6. On 16.03.2022, prosecutrix along with her cousin (sister) was present in

person before this Court and strongly objected for grant of bail to the

appellant.

7. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, looking to the

seriousness of the offence, statements of the prosecutrix recorded under

Sections 161 & 164 Cr.P.C., and that she appeared in person before this

Court and raised objection to grant of bail to the appellant by this Court,

without commenting anything on merits of the case, this Court is not inclined

to release the appellant on bail. The order impugned of 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/-

(Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge vatti