Basant Baghel vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 4094 Chatt

                                         1




                                                                              NAFR
                   HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                            Criminal Appeal No. 713 of 2022
  1. Basant Baghel S/o Ramchand Baghel, by Caste: Bhatra, aged about 24
     years,
  2. Sanjay Durgam S/o Mahesh Durgam by Caste: Bhatra, aged about 20
     years,
  3. Sandeep Gupta S/o Lallu Ram Gupta, By Caste: Bhunj, aged about 32 years
     All are R/o Village: Kirandul, District Dantewada (C.G.)
                                                                      ---- Appellants
                                      Versus
   State of Chhattisgarh, Through: Station House Officer, Police Station :
     Keshkal, District Kondagaon (C.G.) wrongly mentioned as Kongagaon
                                                              ----State/Respondent

  For Appellants              :   Shri Pankaj Singh, Advocate
  For Respondent /State       :   Shri Kashif Shakeel, Deputy Advocate General
                                  and Shri Shivnath Shrivas, Panel Lawyer
                   Hon'ble Shri Justice Gautam Chourdiya, J
                             Judgment on Board
28.06.2022

1. This appeal by the accused/appellants under Section 14-A (2) of the

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989

is directed against the order dated 01.04.2022 passed by the Special Judge,

SCST (PA) Act 1989, Kondagaon, District Kondagaon (C.G.) rejecting their

regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The appellants are in jail since

03.10.2020 in connection with Crime No. 98/2020 for the offence punishable

under Sections 366, 506(B) & 376 (d) of IPC and Sections 3 (2) (v) & 3 (2)

(v-a) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of

Atrocities) Act, registered at Police Station Keshkal, District Kondagaon

(C.G.).

2. Earlier appeal of the appellants was dismissed on merits by this Court vide

order dated 06.08.2021 passed in Cr.A. No. 432/2021.

3. Prosecution case is that on 01.10.2020 at about 11:10 am, the prosecutrix

was standing on National Highway-30 for waiting bus, at about 12:00 noon

one truck came there and she indicated to stop the truck and requested the

driver to drop her in Kondagaon bus-stand and the prosecutrix sat in the

truck. In the said truck there were three persons including the driver. But, the

said truck was not stopped by the driver at Kondagaon bus-stand and he

took the truck towards Keshkal forest where the above three persons

threatened her to life and committed forcible sexual intercourse with her one

after another.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants have been

falsely implicated in this crime, there was no test identification parade

conducted by the police. He submits that some of the prosecution witnesses

have been examined before the trial Court and they have not supported the

prosecution case. He further submits that the prosecutrix has not been

examined before the trial Court till date. He also submits that the appellants

are in jail since 03.10.2020 and conclusion of the trial is likely to take some

time, therefore, they may be released on bail.

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

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

7. As per State counsel, notice has already been served upon the brother of

the prosecutrix namely Anturam, but, neither the prosecutrix is present, nor

is there any representation on her behalf.

8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the fact that 08

witnesses have been examined before trial Court in which Dr.(Smt.) M.

Bharti (PW-7) and Anturam Netam (PW-6), brother of the prosecutrix, have

not supported the prosecution case, PW-6 stated in his deposition that her

sister had not stated regarding incident to him and he has no knowledge

about any incident happened against her sister; looking to the entire order-

sheet of the trial Court, the prosecutrix has not appeared before the trial

Court for long time even after notice being sent to her, on 28.09.2021

summons was served upon the prosecutrix to appear to give evidence on

29.09.2021, but she did not appear, thereafter on 09.05.2022 bailable

warrant was issued against the prosecutrix, but she did not appear before

the trial Court; the detention period of the appellants who are 20, 24 & 32

years old, trial has not been concluded till date and conclusion of the trial is

likely to take some time, and the fact that there is no apprehension of the

appellants tampering with the evidence or absconding as admitted by

learned counsel for the appellants, without expressing any opinion on the

merits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that present is a fit case for

grant of bail to the appellants. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.

9. It is directed that in the event of each of the appellants executing a personal

bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties of Rs.50,000/- each to the

satisfaction of the concerned trial Court, they shall be released on bail on the

following conditions:-

i. they 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/her from disclosing such fact to the Court. ii. they shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial.

iii. they shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to them by the said Court till disposal of the trial. iv. they shall not involve themselves in any offence of similar nature in future.

10.Let a copy of this order be forwarded to the concerned Police Station

forthwith who shall inform the trial Court in the event of appellants involving

themselves in similar nature of offence.

Sd/-

(Gautam Chourdiya) Judge

vatti