Mukesh Lehre vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 4775 Chatt

                                                                   Page 1 of 2

                                                                        NAFR

              HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                      MCRCA No. 204 of 2022
    Mukesh Lehre Son Of Maniram Lehre, Aged About 22 Years R/o
     Jarhagaon, Chatouna, Mungeli, District- Mungeli, Chhattisgarh.
                                                                 ---- Applicant
                                  Versus
    State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station
     Sarkanda, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.
                                                            --- Non-applicant
    ________________________________________________________
      For the Applicant        :      Mr. Sumit Singh Rathore, Advocate.
      For State/ Non-applicant :      Mr. Amit Kumar Verma, P. L.
      For objector             :      Ms. Maya Chaturvedi, Advocate
    ________________________________________________________
                 Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput
                              Order on Board
26.07.2022

  1.

Counsel for the applicant has filed some photographs with covering memo. Registry is directed to keep this photographs in the sealed cover.

2. 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.79/2022 registered at Police Station- Sarkanda, District- Bilaspur, CG for the offence punishable under Sections 376(2)(N) of IPC.

3. Case of the prosecution in brief is that on 20.01.2021 complainant has lodged a report to the concerned police station alleging that she was studying I.T.I. in Bilaspur in the year 2019 and applicant was also studying with her therefore they knew to each other and subsequently, they were in love affair and started meeting at different places and several times they made physical relationship. Thereafter, when the complainant asked the applicant for marriage, he denied and saying that his family members will not agree for their marriage. On the basis of such report police has registered an offence under Section 376(2)(N) of IPC against the applicant.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is an innocent person and has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that the applicant and complainant were having very good friendship relation but the complainant is having a one-sided love with the applicant

and she was continuously forcing the applicant for the marriage and every time the applicant denied as he is studying now and he is not settled in his life. Therefore, complainant lodged a complaint against applicant. It is further submits that as per page 16 on 13.01.2022 the complainant has withdrawn her complaint. He also relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Maheshwar Tigga Vs. State of Jharkhand reported in (2020) 10 SCC 108.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application and submits that the applicant has committed sexual intercourse with prosecutrix on pretext of marriage, therefore, he is not entitled for grant of bail.

6. Counsel for the objector also opposed the grant of anticipatory bail.

7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, looking to the age of the prosecutrix and the applicant, period of relationship between the applicant and the victim, also considering the case of Maheshwar Tigga (Supra), without commenting anything on the merits and demerits of the case, this Court finds it to be a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to applicant. Accordingly, the application is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant, 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 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,

(b)He shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial,

(c)He shall not involve himself in any offence of similar nature in future.

(d) He shall appear before the concerned Police Officer/Investigating Officer on 23.08.2022 for co-operating in investigation.

8. It is made clear that the if any of the aforesaid conditions is violated by the appellant, the State would be free to move for cancellation of bail.

Sd/-

(Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge parul