Chattisgarh High Court
Maikal Minj vs The State Of Chhattisgarh on 19 July, 2022
Page 1 of 4
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
MCRCA No. 538 of 2022
1.
Maikal Minj S/o Late Lolas Minj, Aged About 34 Years, Caste
Uraon, R/o Village Siwarpara, Police Station Lailunga, District
Raigarh (C.G.).
---- Applicant
Versus
1. The State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Station House Office,
Police Station Kusmi, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.).
---- Non-Applicant/State
For Applicant : Ms. Varsha Sharma, Advocate
For State : Mr. Sushil Sahu, P.L..
Hon'ble Justice Shri Sachin Singh Rajput
Order on Board
19/07/2022
1) The applicant has preferred this First Bail Application under
Section 438 of Cr.P.C. as he is apprehending his arrest in
connection with Crime No. 07/2022 registered at Police Station
Kusmi, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) for the offence
punishable under Sections 376(2)(n) & 506 of Indian Penal Code
and Sections 4 & 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual
Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012.
2) Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the applicant on an
assurance of marriage has committed sexual intercourse against
the prosecutrix, hence FIR has been registered against the
applicant for the aforesaid offences. The applicant is working in
the Electricity Department, Kusmi as Lineman.
3) Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is an
innocent person and has been falsely implicated in this case. She
submits that the allegations levelled against the present applicant
for commission of the intercourse on the pretext of marriage is
totally false. It is stated that the first incident allegedly took place
in the year 2014 and thereafter continued till 2022 and the report
was lodged in the year 2022 which goes to show that somehow
the victim is trying to implicate the present applicant in the false
case. At the time of lodging FIR, the victim/prosecutrix was aged
about 23 year and in order to bring the case under the stringent
provisions of POCSO Act, the incident was said to have
commenced from 2014. In view of the long alleged relationship
between the applicant and the prosecutrix/victim, it cannot be said
that the applicant has given a false promise of marriage to her.
She further submits that it is not a case that the consent of the
victim/prosecutrix was obtained by fraud or misconception of fact.
Therefore, the provision of Section 90 of Indian Penal Code and
Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 would not come into
play in the present case. She further submits that the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in matter of Maheshwar Tigga vs The State Of
Jharkhand, (2020) 10 SCC 108 and Pramod Suryabhan Pawar
vs The State Of Maharashtra & Another, (2019) 9 SCC 608 has
categorically stated that in view of long period of physical
relationship between the parties, it cannot be said that such
relationship was established on the false promise from very
inception. Lastly she submits that the applicant has already
married the prosecutrix and they are living together peacefully
which is evident from the affidavit of the applicant and the
prosecutrix filed herewith alongwith covering memo. Therefore,
looking to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the
applicant may be enlarged on anticipatory bail and he is ready and
willing to comply with the conditions so imposed.
4) On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that the
report was lodged in the year 2022 alleging that the applicant
committed forcible sexual intercourse on the pretext of marriage
from the year 2014 and at that time the prosecutrix was minor,
therefore, the provisions of POCSO Act are applicable. He
submits that the investigation is undergoing and custodial
interrogation of the present applicant is necessary to proceed
further in the investigation. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled
for the grant of anticipatory bail.
5) On 13/07/2022, the prosecutrix appeared personally and she has
raised no objection to grant of bail to the applicant.
6) Having heard learned counsel for the parties, having regard to the
facts and circumstances of the case, considering the rival
submissions made by the counsel for the respective parties, the
age of prosecutrix, the period of alleged relationship between the
applicant and the prosecutrix, and also considering the judgment
of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maheshwar Tigga and Pramod
Suryabhan Pawar (Supra), the fact that the applicant has already
performed marriage with the prosecutrix which is evident from the
affidavits of the prosecutrix and the applicant filed herewith, no
custodial interrogation of applicant is required, though the matter
is under investigation, however, no apprehension is shown by the
State Counsel of his absconding or tampering with or influencing
the witnesses, without commenting anything on merits of the case,
this Court is of the opinion that present is a fit case for granting
anticipatory bail to the applicant. Accordingly, the application is
allowed.
7) It is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant in
connection with the aforesaid crime, he shall be released on bail
by the Arresting Officer on his furnishing a personal bond for a
sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety of Rs. 25,000/- to the
satisfaction of the Arresting Officer. Applicant shall be released on
bail on the following conditions:-
i. he shall make himself available for interrogation before the
Police as and when required,
ii. 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 the Investigating Officer,
iii. he shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair
and expeditious trial,
iv. he shall appear before the trial Court on each and every
date given to him by the said Court till disposal of the trial
and
v. he shall not involve himself in any offence of similar nature
in future.
It is made clear that the above observations are only for
deciding this bail application. Needless to state that the Trial Court
shall decide the case on its own merits in accordance with law.
The State as well as the victim/prosecutrix are at liberty to
file an application regarding cancellation of this bail application in
the event of applicant involving himself in similar offence in future.
-Sd/-
(Sachin Singh Rajput)
Judge
Chandrakant
