Chattisgarh High Court

Girish Pawar Alias Rahangdale vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 20 July, 2022

                                          1


                                                                               NAFR
                     HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                                M.Cr.C.(A) No. 1434 of 2021
      Girish Pawar alias Rahangdale, S/o Late Shri Pritam Lal Rahangdale, aged
       about 30 years, R/o Near to Railway Colony, Korba, P.S. & Tahsil, Korba,
       District Korba, Chhattisgarh

                                                                       ---- Applicant
                                      Versus
      State of Chhattisgarh, Through P.S. City Kotwali, District Korba, Chhattisgarh
                                                            ---- State/Non-Applicant

  For Applicant               :   Shri Kishore Bhaduri, Senior Advocate with
                                  Shri Pankaj Singh, Advocate

  For Non-Applicant/State     :   Ms. Ruchi Nagar, Deputy Government Advocate


                    Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput
                                 Order on Board
20.07.2022


   1.

The applicant has preferred this first bail application under Section 438 of

Cr.P.C. as he apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime No. 949/2021,

registered at Police Station City Kotwali, District Korba (C.G.) for offence

punishable under Section 376 (2) (n) of IPC and Sections 4 & 6 of POCSO

Act.

2. As per prosecution story, a complaint was made by the prosecutrix/victim

before the Police Station City, District Korba alleging that she was repeatedly

raped by the present applicant since 2014 on the pretext of marriage. It is

alleged that the prosecutrix was a minor at time when incident first occurred.

Hence, on report being lodged to the above effect, the aforesaid offences

have been registered against the applicant.

3. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the applicant is innocent person and

has been falsely implicated in the case. He submits that it is not in dispute

that there are romantic relationships between the applicant and complainant

since 2014 because they are neighbour. He submits that in fact, in October

2020, an attempt was made by the family of the applicant to solemnize their

marriage which was unfortunately, turned down by the family of the

complainant. He submits that the applicant got married with another girl on

16.02.2021 and in the said marriage, the complainant's family was also

invited, but the complainant had not raised any objection with regard to

marriage of the applicant with another girl. Therefore, the allegations made

by the complainant against the applicant is utterly baseless. He further

submits that at present the prosecutrix is residing at next door of the

applicant's house and she is a major and is working as teacher in Nursing

College. He submits that the first incident regarding rape against the

prosecutrix happened in the year 2014/2015 and the F.I.R. was lodged in

the year 2021, prior to lodging the F.I.R. there is no complaint made by the

prosecutrix regarding rape committed by the applicant Therefore, there is

delay in lodging the report by the prosecutrix and her conduct is doubtful.

He also submits that there is no likelihood of the applicant tampering with the

prosecution evidence or absconding and the trial of the case is likely to take

some time for its final disposal. Therefore, the applicant be released on

anticipatory bail by this Court. Reliance has been placed on the decisions of

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Thulia Kali vs. State of T.N., (1972) 3 SCC

393 and Dilawar Singh vs. State of Delhi, (2007) 12 SCC 641.

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

application. She submits that from the allegations in the F.I.R. as well as

statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., there are

specific allegations leveled against the present applicant and the applicant

on the false pretext of marriage with prosecutrix committed forcible sexual

intercourse against her. Therefore, custodial interrogation of the applicant is

required and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, benefit of

Section 438 Cr.P.C. may not be extended to the applicant

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

6. On 07.04.2022, the prosecutrix appeared through DLSA, Korba and

opposed the bail application of the applicant.

7. In Maheshwar Tigga vs. State of Jharkhand, reported in (2020) 10 SCC

108, it has been observed in para-18 which is relevant and quoted below:-

"18. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the facts and circumstances of the present case and are of the considered opinion that the appellant did not make any false promise or intentional misrepresentation of the marriage leading to establishment of physical relationship between the parties. The prosecutrix was herself aware of the obstacles in their relationships because of different religious beliefs. An engagement ceremony was also held in the solemn belief that the societal obstacles would be overcome, but unfortunately differences also arose whether the marriage was to be solemnised in the Church or in a temple and ultimately failed. It is not possible to hold on the evidence available that the appellant right from the inception did not intend to marry the prosecutrix ever and had fraudulently misrepresented only in order to establish physical relation with her. The prosecutrix in her letters acknowledged that the appellant's family was always very nice to her."

8. In Pramod Suryabhan Pawar vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in (2019)

9 SCC 608, it has been observed in para-21 which is relevant and quoted

below:-

"21. The allegations in the FIR do not on their face indicate that the promise by the appellant was false, or that the complainant engaged in sexual relations on the basis of this promise. There is no allegation in the FIR that when the appellant promised to marry the complainant, it was done in bad faith or with the intention to deceive her. The appellant's failure in 2016 to fulfill his promise made in 2008 cannot be construed to mean the promise itself was false. The allegations in the FIR indicate that the

complainant was aware that there existed obstacles to marrying the appellant since 2008, and that she and the appellant continued to engage in sexual relations long after their getting married had become a disputed matter. Even thereafter, the complainant travelled to visit and reside with the appellant at his postings and allowed him to spend his weekends at her residence. The allegations in the FIR belie the case that she was deceived by the appellant's promise of marriage. Therefore, even if the facts set out in the complainant's statements are accepted in totality, no offence under Section 375 IPC has occurred."

9. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly

considering the age of the prosecutrix and the fact that there were

continuous physical relations between the applicant and the prosecutrix, the

first incident happened in the year 2014/2015, since last 07 years, no report

was lodged or any complaint was made during this period, and when the

applicant performed marriage with another woman, then after 07 years of

long delay she lodged the F.I.R. in the year 2021, it does not prima facie

appear that the applicant gave false assurance of marriage to the

complainant and that assurance from the inception was false, there is no

likelihood of the applicant tampering with the prosecution evidence or

absconding, no custodial interrogation of the applicant is required as

admitted by counsel for the parties and conclusion of the trial may take some

time, keeping in view the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of

Maheshwar Tigga (supra) and Pramod Suryabhan Pawar (supra), without

commenting anything on merits of the case, I am inclined to release him on

anticipatory bail.

10. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed and it is directed that in the event

of arrest of the applicant in connection with the aforesaid crime, he shall be

released on anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of

Rs.25,000/- with one surety of Rs.25,000/- to the satisfaction of the Arresting

Officer subject to the following terms and conditions:-

i. He shall make himself available for interrogation by the concerned police officer as and when so 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 them from disclosing such fact to the Court or to any police officer.

iii. He shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial.

iv. 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.